Caribbean Lionesse

Farewell PM Thompson

2010-10-23T07:25:00.000-04:00

The day we were dreading has come and Barbados' Prime Minister David Thompson is with us no more.

Call me foolish but I really was shaken when I got the call around 5 a.m. this morning. It felt like it had been so long that he had been ill that I had started to convince myself he would hold on and be in that small sliver of those who survive pancreatic cancer.

Like most Barbadians home and away I am saddened. It really is a personal tragedy writ large. He's not even 50. His children aren't even done raised yet. It truly is unfair and makes you wonder why.

For most of my life (and most of his) we have witnessed David Thompson in pursuit of power. We knew he wanted it. Many wanted it for him and saw him as destined for it.

And certainly he struggled for it long and hard. Fourteen years in opposition is a long, cold, bitter winter.

And when finally he got what he had desired for so long and what he and his family had sacrificed for, he barely got to enjoy it.

Now don't get me wrong. I am not saying 'oh, if only he had never become PM, he would be here today.' Maybe we could have made that argument with Barrow who died of a heart attack but being Prime Minister doesn't give you cancer.

It's just horrid, horrible fate and I don't know that I can approach it with equanimity and say 'oh it is probably for the best' and 'at least he is out of his pain'.

It cannot be for the best that a man who is only 48 and still has a very young child is dead. It never can be, whether it is the Prime Minister or the postman.

It is tragic and unfair. My heart goes out to his family - thank you for sharing with us for all these many years.

America, we were wrong

2008-11-05T11:11:00.004-04:00

America... my bad. We were wrong about you. We completely underestimated you.
And this morning, I am happy to admit I was wrong.

I am only in my late 20s, no grizzled veteran of the civil rights era. I came of age in a time when apartheid ended and the possibilities seemed endless for those of us blacks born on this side of the Atlantic where our ancestors had been on the receiving end of oppression for centuries.

I knew the possibilities were endless but yet I never, ever envisioned this possibility. Not in my lifetime, not ever honestly, as the racial demographics of the United States continue to shift and my people become a minority within minorities.

Like many, even most other people around the globe and certainly the majority of black people, I did not think that Americans were ready to elect a black president. I was convinced, as we all were, that you could not overcome your 'original sin' of slavery that has tainted racial relations for all of your existence.

Clearly, President-elect Barack Obama saw something that the rest of us did not see. Clearly, you knew within yourself that the world was wrong. That you were bigger and you had come far enough and you were ready.

I am in awe. Even when I decided, just about a year ago to throw caution to the wing and believe, after Michelle Obama exhorted us in that profound interview with Mika Brzezinski to have more faith in ourselves and not place limits on what we believed... I was still doubtful. I was tentative, nervous and often questioned my support. Even after the ecstasy of the Iowa caucus I still battled internal doubts even as I showed an outwardly confident and positive face. People laughed at my determined optimism in Obama as naive, too hopeful. Even as more and more started to come around, there was still a strong undercurrent of doubt and cynicism.

'The United States is inherently racist' went the meme. 'At some point this dream has to stop.'

But it didn't. You didn't let it. You went through all the way and gave Barack Obama, a black man, a resounding victory.

I was wrong about you, United States of America. I am so glad I was. I see you with very different eyes now.

A new 'Black Monday'?

2008-09-29T19:13:00.003-04:00

Not that I'm too big on the idea of terming days 'black' to connote negativity but that is another post...

Point is, it has been a pretty bad Monday for the financial markets and it seems to be continuing a trend of gloomy Mondays.

After all the Wall Street crash of 1929 which kick-started the Great Depression, was on a Monday. So was the 'Black Monday' of the October 1987 global stock crash. For that matter so were the two previous major financial panics (well the lowlights) this year- Monday, January 21 and Monday, September 15- two weeks ago when Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch failed.

So Mondays aren't so hot and today is taking its place in the grim Monday annals of history.

Today's rejection of the US$700 billion bailout plan spurred a panicked 777-point drop on the Dow Jones industrial index - the largest ever single point drop in history.

Things are bad. They are very bad. And the bad news is that really no matter who becomes US president after Bush the buffoon has rode off into the sunset with the title of Worst. President.Ever. they don't have the power to fix the financial crisis.

Truth be told, the American presidency is a constitutionally weak post - deliberately created that way by that country's founding fathers to avoid monarchical-type power being placed in the hands of one person since that was what the whole war of 'Independence' was about.

Newsweek has a good article about it, explaining why the prez can't really fix things. The most power a president actually has is to inspire a mood of confidence among his countrymen, so that consumer confidence will be boosted once again.

See it's all a poker game. It's all balancing on confidence and everyone having or at least pretending they have the confidence to maintain things and leverage and risk massive amounts of money. But everyone has started losing confidence in everyone else and it is creating a domino effect that these fools seem unable to stop, even though they know it is based on their being confident.

To di worl'!

2008-09-27T00:33:00.002-04:00

My god, sometimes I just lovelovelove Jamaica! Barely a month has passed since the Olympics ended and it's only been about two weeks since Usain Bolt returned home but there are already numerous songs and of course - a dance. Di lightning bolt. What else?

It's modelled on Bolt's now trademark (him smart eeenh? all dem moves and dancing - pure marketing genius. Puma loves him right now) move where he draws back his arm and points to the sky, as if he were some ancient god tossing a lightning bolt into the heavens.

Of course, Jamaica's dancers have a fair bit of genius too and never saw or heard anything that they could not make a dance out of.

So... without further adieu, I present to you the lightning bolt dance. Enjoy!

Simply put: yes we can

2008-08-30T00:02:00.002-04:00

And though it seems heaven sent
We ain't ready to have a black president

Tupac, Changez
circa 1995-96

I won't lie, I cried a little on Thursday night. It has been so long that we have been watching this process that it is easy to lose sight sometimes of what a truly historic watershed this is, how unlikely this was even a year ago and how even more unlikely 4 years ago.

I am only 26 but honestly, I never thought I would see this in my lifetime. I just didn't. And it is not like I am a pessimistic person. On the contrary I am hugely optimistic - I think the world we live in is getting better, morally and ethically. That is not a popular opinion but it is true. So many evils that were taken for granted for centuries before us - classism, caste systems, slavery, child labour, brutal oppression of women, autocracy and dictatorship, serfdom - have been largely recognised as the inequities they are and we are working hard at banishing them.

The world is becoming a better place but I still saw nothing at ALL on the horizon even four, five years ago to indicate to me that we would be at this point in 2008. Did you? Obama was only the third black U.S. Senator since Reconstruction and the fifth in the United States history. There was nothing that indicated to me that the United States, so fatally obsessed with race as it is, would move a black man to being so near a position of power through the ballot box. I honestly thought our best chances were in being appointed to high office.

What the heck made him think he could do it? What did he see that we did not see? I am still amazed at what the American people have done and even more amazed that Obama saw it in them when few else did.

I did not think it could really, really happen. Like, for real, actually nominated, one of two main options - real ish.

I am tingly at the thought that Michelle Obama could be the First Lady - someone like me! Like really like me! Black, middle class, striving, pulling herself up through intellect and good education. It is so amazing as a black woman to see someone that we can relate to. And we all can, whether on this side of the Atlantic or the other.

So I shed a few tears on Thursday night. Tears of sheer joy and thankfulness that this has actually come to pass and I'm here to see it!

I'm saving the big tears for November 4th. I am still holding my breath quite a bit - force of habit I guess. I cannot imagine what I would do that day.

America surprised us
And let a black man guide us

Nas, Black President
2008

Maybe some day...

2008-08-27T19:05:00.004-04:00

An older person asked me tonight: "Do you think you will ever see the Caribbean united in your lifetime?"

He asked with a sense of both hopefulness and wistfulness. Hopeful perchance, that I was hopeful, that maybe in my relative youth (he is at least 40 years older than me) that I had gleaned some signs amongst my own generation that indicated that the dream long held by integrationists could come true. Wistfulness was also there, echoes of the opportunities lost that he has seen in his own life and the fall out that has occurred at each Caribbean territory stubbornly insisted on going its own way.

I paused for a long time. Honestly, I don't know. Even now with the Manning initiative II making its way through the headlines of the region, the atmosphere is not one that moves me to believe that Caribbean people will see the light.

But on the other hand, I look at the joyous and full-hearted response of the whole region at the victories of our Caribbean athletes at the recent Olympics. Is it the masses that is the real obstacle to Caribbean integration as is oft touted? Stubborn, xenophobic, resistant and suspicious of 'foreigners' taking their dearly held jobs and spouses?

I don't know. These masses were overjoyed at the Caribbean's success. They embraced it as warmly as their own. But then again, who couldn't or wouldn't?

Maybe then it is our leaders, prideful and ego-driven, determined to hold on to their little patch of power and remain the biggest fish in their tiny ponds?

I don't know. So I paused for what my heart wants and what my brain says is possible seemed to be two different things.

But then I turned on the television. The Democratic Convention was on and the delegates had just decided to dispense with the roll call and declare Barack Obama the official Democratic nominee by acclamation.

I never thought I would see this day. To be perfectly honest, the United States is so riven with racial tension and guilt and division still and with the black population shrinking as a proportion of the population and viewed with suspicion by all other races I did not think it possible that a man who looks as black as many people I know would reach this far. Certainly I did not see it coming at all, not even four years ago when Obama made 'The Speech' at the Democratic Convention.

It has made me believe again that maybe the seemingly impossible things are within our reach. Sometimes it takes years to reach a historical moment such as this, a watershed and at other times history happens all at once, in a series of quick bounds and leaps. Everything comes together, a charismatic figure ignites us and history happens. I believe they call these revolutions. :)

So maybe some day it will happen all at once. Maybe a figure will arise that will unite us and show us that we can truly achieve so much more together.

Jeezam... can we just be happy?

2008-08-18T00:11:00.004-04:00

We all saw it. We all woke up early yesterday morning to watch the semis and then stayed glued for the finals of the men's 100m finals.

And we saw ... a force of nature is all I can call him,just reaching the peak of his powers, absolutely dominate the event.

I won't even begin to try and describe Usain Bolt's amazing, staggering, stupendous, 'did I really just see that' 100m victory. The yute had them beat so clear, he had time to celebrate for the last 20 metres.

It was an amazing sporting moment to cherish - moments like that when everything comes together and all the pieces fall into place don't just come along every day. In sprinting, you would have to go back to the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta and Michael Johnson's 19.32 to compare. And even then it still doesn't compare. Johnson was a uber-focused machine - everything he had was geared towards that moment. His victory was clinical not the joyful, exuberant display of power and ability that we saw from Bolt.

So that is why I can't understand how people finding the time to be vex with Bolt. People stupsing and cyber-stupsing and saying 'maaaaannnn, he shoulda run faster. He shouldn't have stopped to celebrate, he shoulda run straight through'. People grumbling about show-boating.

A wha do dem?

Can we please put this in perspective?

You are 21. You have been on the come-up for years but outside of your home country where they knew you were bad from long time (I had the fortune to live in JA when Usain Bolt first started to show his potential as a gangly teenager becoming the world's youngest Junior champion and mashing up interschool sports) people don't really know about you. You start competing in THE marquee event of sprinting and within a few months you are the world record holder.

Then you win the Olympic gold, the first man ever from your country to do so in the blue riband event AND you pelt a lash in the world record again.

Would YOU not showboat?

Who among us would calmly run across the line, maintaining our composure and holding our jubilation inside?

Of COURSE he wanted to celebrate! He's barely an adult, just 21 years old and he is on top of the world! As soon as he could celebrate he did.

I would too.

So can we please just be happy peoples? We have seen what he is capable of and God willing and barring injury, we will get our 9.60 flat or our 9.5-something out of Usain in the future. He's just 21! Relax - we have plenty time to enjoy this young phenomenon.

So can we just enjoy that we saw a most brilliant and dominating Olympic victory and world record performance? Can we enjoy the fact that he so clearly enjoyed and revelled in his victory, jumping and chest-pumping and doing the Gully creeper dance and just being young and at the top of his game?

Can we enjoy that it was a Caribbean 1-2 in the men's 100m and then the Jamaican ladies gave us the 1-2-3 in the women's event?

And that little Shelly-Ann Fraser, the Olympic champion is just as cute as a button? Her exuberant reaction was so adorable!

Can we enjoy the fantastic reaction of Trini sprinter Richard Thompson who came out of the shadows of Marc Burns and Darrell Brown by winning silver? And that he celebrated as wildly as if he had won gold? He was great - I loved that he was so excited.

So let us be happy folks. Enjoy the moment, it's ok. Let's not grumble about 9.5s and what could have beens and what shoulda been dones. It can be done and probably will be done. So just cool nuh?

Me personally, I'm ecstatic. As a Caribbean woman I am so very thrilled at our ascendancy, at these little rocks just showing the world the kind of heart and determination and talent we have. SIX Caribbean men were in the men's 100m finals and FOUR Caribbean women were in the women's 100m finals. That is incredible for a region of just a few million people.

But (whispers) my true elation is for Jamaica. My other, other island, land of my father, the place where I attended university and have some of my best memories and best friends. If you haven't been there, you can't quite understand it, the love that you can have despite it all for this island with its schizo, split personality. Jekyll and Hyde all wrapped in one. JA can make you so sad, so depressed, so numb with pain - and it has, many times before.

But ... shit like this what makes us love it. It is as vibrant and full of life and vigour and joy as it can be full of pain. It has its crippling failures yet but when JA shines ... it shines so bright none can match it. It makes you so proud of the strength and beauty and creativity and amazed that it can still keep producing, still keep throwing up these phenomenal talents in hard circumstances.

Truly, Usain Bolt and Shelly-Ann Fraser have shown that in the last 48 hours and make Jamaica truly the land we love.

Winds of change keep blowing

2008-07-10T08:58:00.003-04:00

Nuff said.

The winds of change have been blowing strong in the Caribbean. I am definitely convinced that the behaviour of voters in one island is influencing that of voters in the next. It has been basically a domino effect of falling governments since St. Lucians started the ball rolling in December 2006.

The roll call in the last 2 years is:

Montserrat - May 2006 -1 term John Osborne gov't out (Osborne had been CM from 78-91)
St. Lucia - December 2006 - 2-term Kenny Anthony gov't out
Bahamas - May 2007 - 1-term Perry Christie gov't out
Jamaica - September 2007 - 4-term Portia Simpson-Miller gov't out
British Virgin Islands - 1-term Orlando Smith gov't out
Barbados - January 2008 - 3-term Owen Arthur gov't out
Belize - February 2008 - 2-term Said Musa gov't out
Grenada - July 2008 - 3-term Keith Mitchell gov't out

The only one who has been able to resist the winds of change in the Caribbean in the last few years has been Patrick Manning in Trinidad and that is more because of the fragmented state of Trinidad politics than anything else.

But ... 8 governments in two years! If I was a long-incumbent party I would be shaking, no lie. It's like a whole new generation of Caribbean leadership basically (aside from Hubert Ingraham who has been there before). I grew up for about half of my life with a particular group of leaders - Arthur, Anthony, Mitchell, Gonsalves, PJ Patterson and then Simpson-Miller.

But I'm in a new phase of my life now - as a genuine adult and the Caribbean is in a new phase now as well. It remains to be seen how this generation will pan out.

Happy Birthday Madiba!

2008-07-02T15:35:00.003-04:00

I remember it. Do you? How could you not?

Even though I was a few months shy of 8 years old on February 11, 1990 and my grasp of the world around me was not profound, I knew it was an important day. There was a buzz around.

My mother was excited insisting that I watch the special broadcast on CBC - the broadcast that was going to be shown around the world of Nelson Mandela being freed from jail after 27 years.

I remember being caught up in the excitement, running around pumping my fist and shouting 'Amandla!' though I did not know what it meant then - I just knew it meant something great. It was gripping - the thousands of South Africans cheering and dancing, Mandela peering around hesitantly, Winnie urging him to raise his fist in the ANC salute and boldly pumping her fist in the air and then he followed and everyone did in kind.

It was many years later when I fully understood the significance of it all of course. When I was a child, the South African issue was this thing that was present in the lives of all black people. It was both spoken and unspoken. For instance, those cricketers who had 'gone to South Africa' I knew something was wrong with them though I did not understand quite what. But I knew it was bad - mentions of them brought a furtive, uneasy undercurrent among the adults, especially as I went to school with the children of some of them.

As I grew older and learned and read more (much, much more) and became an avid formal and informal student of history, I came to understand so much better. For the Christmas of my 18th year, my best friend gave me a copy of Mandela's autobiography and I came to know even more.

And I was filled with admiration. How did he do it? How did they all do it? Being raised in the Caribbean, in a majority black nation, it was hard to fathom what they went through, also living in amajority black nation but being subjugated in your very own land. Living with that veil of fear always hanging over you.

How did he bring himself to forgive? That remains our greatest question and the source of everyone's admiration. Having had 27 years of his life taken from him, countless friends and comrades, enduring his son's death but not being able to even go to his funeral, the dissolution of his marriage - after all that, how do you forgive? And not just forgive in a superficial way but in a way that inspires others to forgive and to repent and that helps a nation move forward?

We have all been made better by the example of Mandela. And this is why, as he approaches his 90th birthday (on July 18th) the world celebrates. It is a joy to us that he has been able to enjoy so many years on the outside and reap the fruits of his sacrifice. Living well truly is the best revenge. Happy birthday Madiba.

Will no-one help Zimbabwe?

2008-06-27T09:08:00.006-04:00

An MDC party worker who was tied and beaten by pro-ZANU-PF supporters, waiting in a clinic in Harare to be treated
(photo credit: Getty Images via Newsweek)

Today Zimbabweans are being led to the polls. Led, not going. Police and paramilitary officers are literally leading people to the polling stations to participate in this sham of an election run-off.

With Tsvangirai out of the race so as to protect his party and its supporters, with Zimabweans having been dragged to brutal forced 're-education camps' for the last few weeks and dozens of people killed and thousands injured, we despair for Zimambwe.

It has gotten so that even other African leaders who have been loathe to criticise the man who was once one of the continent's leading anti-colonialist freedom fighters have become repulsed. At his 90th birthday celebrations in London the other day, Nelson Mandela, who has long tried to stay neutral in the whole situation, spoke against Mugabe's tyranny. Head of the ANC, Jacob Zuma has spoken out against Mugabe, Nigeria has called for its postponement, Botswanan president Ian Khama has threatened to take action against Zimbabwe if the South African Development Council does not.

I despair for Zimbabwe and moreover I despair for the legacy of the anti-colonialist freedom movement that swept Africa in the 60s to 80s. Mugabe was once the pride of independent-minded black people the world over. He has destroyed his legacy and allowed the former colonialists and the neo-colonialists to crow and say "See? See? Nothing but another despot... freedom fighter, what?"

There has long been a desire to paint many African freedom fighters as nothing but thugs - and too often we have played into their hands. Look at how the ANC elite set about to destroy Winnie Mandela's reputation. That woman was a warrior - she could have fled and lived in cushy exile like some others (*coff* Mbeki *coff*) but she stayed and endured. But they set after her with trials and innuendo and sullied her reputation and obscured the good she did.

Mugabe on the other hand has willingly destroyed his own legacy. He is 84 - I do not understand, why this rabid desire to stay in power in his twilight years? If he had left when the writing was on the wall - did like leaders do in the Caribbean and cede the leadership of his party to someone else when it became clear they were on the verge of losing, he could have had his cake and eaten it. He would have been wealthy, he would have been hailed as a freedom fighter a la Madiba and he would have never led his party to defeat.

But back to my original question - will no-one help Zimbabwe? The world sits by and twitters and tsks and tut-tuts and does little that is tangible. If this were an Eastern European country would they not have intervened already?

See, this is why it does Africans no good to be civil and democratic and go for their goals through the ballot rather than the bullet. MDC has done that and WHO HAS COME TO THEIR AID? It has come to the point where I want them to fight back. Get armed, get trained - fight!

The Rwandans had to fight - the world sat and watched a genocide and did NOTHING. The Rwandan Patriotic Front had to do it themselves. Idi Amin was driven from power by Ugandan exiles and Tanzania and then the petty dictators that came after him had to be driven out by the National Resistance Army. Laurent Kabila and the AFDL had to run the CIA-supported Mobutu from Zaire. And so on.

So is this what the world wants to see? Africans fighting among themselves? So they can say "oh, those Africans are always fighting among themselves - so much tribal warfare, tsk tsk."

I see.

Well, well, well

2008-06-02T13:09:00.004-04:00

(photo credit: BBC Sport)
If I was Tyson Gay, I would be weeping just about now. Imagine a good two years now you're polishing your credentials as one of the major contenders to be 100m champion at this summer's Beijing Olympics. You win world championship and all, run bare sub-10s, have a little rivalry going on with the other major contender, Jamaica's Asafa Powell. Then Powell hurt his chest, looks iffy to recover in time and you must see the gold glinting.

And then bloody well Usain Bolt who doesn't even care for the 100m, who just uses it as practice for his long-time pet event, the 200m, who is only running in his FIFTH serious 100m event, who is not even sure if he will enter the national trials for it, just ups and breaks the world record, lowering it to 9.72.

Cool, cool so.

Meanwhile, you run your personal best and still end up looking paapsy and slow, running a good tenth of a second behind him.

(photo credit: BBC Sport)

Man, not fuh real.

Yep, if I was Tyson Gay I would be bawling just about now. I would be vex, vex, vex that his Jamaican yute come and steal my thunder. And moreover, his surname is so much cooler and more headline-worthy. Where he come from at all?

Good thing I'm not Tyson Gay. Good thing I'm West Indian and moreover half-Jamaican cos this (ahem) 'bolt' from the blue has me giggling at the delightfulness of it all.

I have been following Bolt's career since he was a gangly 15 year old world youth champion over 8 years ago when I was a student in JA. So I've heard of him ages ago. And I knew he was a 200 man (I was disappointed at his showing in the Athens Olympics) and I remember him being a 400 man back in the day too. With his long, lean frame and long stride, he definitely seemed more suited to longer distances than the sprints. I was surprised enough when I heard he ran 9.76 the other day. Said I "but wait...when he start running 100m?"

And now this! A bonus world record when we were not even expecting it. In a race he is not even very enthused about, as the Jamaica Observer reports.

It just makes me want to throw my head back and laugh. Lovely! I now feeling the Olympic spirit!

Goodbye Terry

2008-05-14T19:13:00.003-04:00

It was around two this afternoon that I heard the news. Journalist Terry Mayers had passed away, after being hospitalised and on life support for the last two weeks after a severe asthma attack on May 2.

I knew Terry through my work in the media, particularly my coverage of cricket. I got to know him better last year leading up to and during the ICC Cricket World Cup which I covered, when he was the media relations officer for the local Organising Committee.

Simply put, Terry's ambition and energy was inspiring. Particularly to me as a younger journalist it was instructive to see how he managed to successfully balance so many different freelance media roles and had really come into his own and was in control of his own destiny as a journalist, rather than trodding the safer road of sticking with a large company and rising through the ranks. He worked with the LOC, he worked with CMC, he was eagerly looking forward to covering the Beijing Olympics, he was the PR man for the Barbados Olympic Association... Terry stayed on his hustle boy! It was a sight to see. And he never gave off the vibe of being frazzled or overwhelmed by his multiple roles - he was good at them all and cool and affable and collected.

His passing is definitely a loss not just to the Barbadian journalistic fraternity but to the Caribbean journalistic community.

Fare thee well Terry. God be with you.

Wake me when it's November, hear?!

2008-05-07T21:46:00.003-04:00

No, this does not mean I am giving up on my support of Barack Obama. I am confident he will win the Democratic nomination and will go on to win the US presidency in November.

But I am fed up with the antics of the Clinton camp and the damn WISHY-WASHINESS, NAMBY-PAMBINESS, WEAK-ASSEDNESS of the Democrats, particularly the superdelegates.

This ish is really ridiculous now. It's turning into a damn farce and I refuse to watch and indulge its every twist and turn any longer. The Democrats are some damn fools for allowing this to go on as it has.

It is clear Clinton cannot win.

Moreover it occured to me today that ...what if the situation was reversed?

What if Hillary Clinton, with all the sheen of 'inevitability' that she had last year this time, had a basically insurmountable lead in delegates with no signs of that being overturned in the slim pickings remaining (Puerto Rico! Guam for pity's sake), was awash with funds while her rival struggled and lent money to himself to stay afloat and yet... he refused to give in? Even while it clearly damaged the party's overall chances in the big picture...the general elections?

Would this behaviour be tolerated from Barack Obama if the roles were reversed? Would he be allowed to even float much less seriously suggest that the superdelegates should overturn the will of the people? Would he be allowed to blatantly gender-bait, smear and use the nastiest of tactics against his own party member?

Would the party leadership, the fundraisers and most of the all, the media not have already shown him the door?

Seriously, why is this behaviour being indulged? Because she name Clinton? *stupssssssse*

Why do I have to tolerate seeing and hearing Clinton surrogates sit with straight faces and defend the idea of seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan all the while claiming it is in the name of 'democracy' when only their candidate was on the ballot in Michigan? IN WHAT KIND OF DEMOCRACY is only one candidate's name on the ballot? Why are they being allowed to get away with this nonsense?

It's just taking a joke too damn far. Meanwhile the Republicans sit back and cannot believe their unbelievable luck. In a year that they should have been guaranteed to lose, with a candidate that large swathes of the party cannot even stomach, the Democrats are doing the job for them.

I am disgusted by the weakness of the superdels who seem to not have the balls ...shoot not even ballS plural, just one damn testicle would do at this point in time, to put their collective foot down and stop this mess.

It's like they're just watching this thing like helpless observers instead of active and powerful participants. DO something for pity's sake!

I have never seen anything like this in my life - politicians that are squeamish about taking power. Which is what this is about. The end game is winning the general elections and the congressional and senate elections in November. Does anyone remember this? Would anyone enjoy winning and sticking it to the Republicans? Hello?

It's like they don't even know how to win when it's handed to them on a plate. It's making me pretty disgusted to tell the truth- it is a rank display of weenie-ness. No wonder the Dems have only held power for 12 out of the last 40 years.

Power FROM the people

2008-04-22T09:47:00.005-04:00

I really want to big up and respect to the port workers of South Africa and their comrades in Mozambique who have taken a people power stand against the disgustingness of Robert Mugabe's regime in the last few days.

As we all know by now, the results of Zimbabwe's presidential elections have STILL not been released some three weeks later. Yet, Mugabe's ZANU-PF is claiming there must be a recount because of irregularities.

The opposition MDC has claimed that their counts have shown that their leader Morgan Tsvangirai won outright, with no need for a recount. Independent tallies estimate that he got the majority of the vote but not enough to avoid a run-off.

The thuggish Zim authorities seem to be laying the ground for a bloody, intimidating, oppressive run-off. Already there have been reports of whole villages being dragged out of their homes, threatened and told that they 'voted wrongly' the first time around and that the ZANU-PF supporters won't 'let them make that same mistake again'.

And this is where the workers of southern Africa have come into play. A Chinese ship bearing a shipment of weapons is bound for Zimbabwe - everyone can put two and two together. We know what they want that shipment for.

But hear what? Zimbabwe is land-locked. The only way to get those bad boys in is through one of their neighbours. And port workers and truck drivers in Durban, backed by the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union, said 'no damn way'. They made it clear that they would not unload or move the shipment so that it could be used against their Zimbabwean brothers and sisters.

Rebuffed, the ship set off for Mozambique in hopes of a friendlier welcome. Unfortunately for them, the Mozambiquan authorities weren't having it - they were barred from entering Mozambique's waters.

The ship is now crawling to Angola in the hopes of at least refueling though it looks unlikely that they will get to unload, what with diplomatic pressure being puton Angola and Namibia. Meanwhile, a Chinese government spokesperson has acknowledged that the ship will probably have to return to Beijing.

I lavs it. That is true African solidarity...Commissiong et al, are you seeing this?

UPDATE: I just came across a very thoughtful, balanced and well-written article by the Guardian's Chris McGreal who has covered Zimbabwe for years. He writes about how there are may who are responsible for enabling the Mugabe regime, including the hypocritical and arrogant British government and white Zimbabweans, who didn't seem to realise (in the words of William Faulkner) that "the past is not dead...in fact it's not even past."

Good grief!

2008-04-22T08:41:00.004-04:00

To use the immortal words of Charlie Brown...it is only grief we're seeing now.

I am convinced that the world is slipping into or is already in, a recession. Call me morbid but I fear it could get worse because I really don't see how it's going to get better soon. A vicious combination of factors is just doing the whole world in.

We already have a fuel mini-crisis with oil prices spiralling up to Us$117 a barrel last week. Then wheat crops have been disastrous recently, causing the price of bread and flour to go up. There is a corn shortage because the dumb Americans and Europeans would rather use corn for cars than people, instead of using the perfectly good sugar ethanol the Brazilians have been producing for years. And I read a story from the Trinidad Express last week that rice is about to go up there by 30%.

A snippet from that story below:

THE OLDER citizens would remember the days when eating rice was a luxury, usually reserved for Sundays. Those days could be returning very soon.

This is the view of Charles James, managing director of the country's main supplier of rice, JMH Enterprise Ltd, who noted that with the next shipment of rice to arrive in the country next week prices would increase by about 30 per cent.

He noted that the four kilogramme bag of rice sold for about $34 to $36, while the nine or 10 kilogramme bag usually sold for between $80 to $95. Consumers could pay about $10 more for the smaller bag and about $30 more for the larger bags of rice.

James explained that his company has been importing rice from Uruguay and Brazil, but the farmers in Uruguay have closed their borders and stopped exporting rice. He noted that Brazil has taken up the slack but have also announced a price increase. He said that Argentina has similarly ceased rice exports following countries such as Vietnam, Thailand and India.

Nothing has been said here yet but I figure if rice is going up there because of imported increases, our time is coming just now.

The Prime Minister's hand was forced last week and he raised fuel prices - or rather, withdrew the subsidies on fuel. The most shocking of all was diesel- all these years I swore diesel was just cheaper to produce or something. I didn't realise it was so heavily subsidised! All those people with big diesel-guzzling SUVs must be hollering for murder now.

It has had an immediate knock-on effect, with the price of fish going up almost immediately...FISH of all things...poor people food! Yesterday it was bacchanal in the Bridgetown fish market as boat owners and operators insisted that they had to raise the price of a 100 catch from $25 to $40. Jeez. Us. Chrise! The vendors weren't having it and several boat owners just went and sold on the street.

However, according to one boat owner, the diesel hike (about 67% -it's practically the same price as gas now- that would tell you) has increased their bill per fishing trip from $1400 to $3600- so wha ya gine do, nuh?

The government also let the subsidy for flour lapse last week and flour has promptly gone up by 30% - I have not heard the official announcements for the increase in the price of bread...but it's coming.

Not only that, chicken, beef, eggs- every damn animal product is expected to go up by at least 10 to 15% since the price of feed increased last week by 25% - something else that had a temporary subsidy on it. Head of the Barbados Agricultural Society and MP James Paul delivered the bitter news in the Sunday Nation.

LOOK FOR PRICE INCREASES in beef, lamb, pork, eggs and possibly chicken by next month – along with major challenges for small farmers – since the price of animal feed has just gone up by 25 per cent.

This warning has come from chief executive officer of the Barbados Agricultural Society (BAS), James Paul, who called it the biggest price increase ever for farmers.

"Never in the history of price increases have you had such a major one affecting farmers across the board in one fell swoop," he told the SUNDAY SUN in an interview just days after the island's lone feed manufacturer Pinnacle Feeds announced the April 16 increase.

I don't know what to do... it doesn't even make any damn sense turning vegetarian since the price of fish, rice and bread have increased or are set to increase.

T'ings rough in trute.

All I have to comfort me in this time is my grandfather's words "it won't always be so." Obviously the world is in for a tough time- a recession or even depression. It will eventually force those who are driving the high prices (oil producers, rice farmers who have cut back their exports, corn farmers) to drop their prices when people's spending power is depressed.

This is honestly some of the most grim economic times I can remember- though my years are short. I can't even compare it to the time after 9/11 because at least then the troubles were really restricted to the tourist industries. But ...food! You just can't do without food- you HAVE to buy it, no matter how expensive it is.

I know this though - I'm definitely going to use my upcoming vacation to plant a kitchen garden- if I can trim a $30 or so off my grocery bill, I might just be able to balance out the price increases.

Sarwan: Gayle fuh skipper!

2008-04-07T13:35:00.004-04:00

I must say, this is refreshing change after some of the acrimonious captaincy battles over the last few years (Lara-Walsh; Lara-Hooper; Lara-Chanderpaul...etc.).

Fresh off of his match-winning century in the 2nd WI v. Sri Lanka home series test, WI vice-captain Ronnie Sarwan has given an effusive thumbs-up to the selection of Chris Gayle as captain of the team.

In a release from the Digicel media team (what's up Imran? :) Sarwan is more than gracious about the man who has replaced him as captain.

MONDAY, APRIL 7 – PORT OF SPAIN, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO – Vice captain Ramnaresh Sarwan may have relieved the Gordon Greenidge led selection panel of one responsibility leading into the upcoming Digicel Test Series against Australia with a bold declaration after batting West Indies to a series levelling victory in the Second Digicel Test at the Queen's Park Oval.

"Chris (Gayle) has been doing a great job with the team, everyone has been rallying around him and I don't think there is anyone better to do the job (captaincy) at the moment," Sarwan told journalists at the post match press conference as he endorsed the captaincy of the man who took over from him after he became injured in 2007.

After retired super batsman Brian Lara retired Sarwan was named captain for the West Indies tour to England but had to return home after injuring his shoulder in the second Test match. Opening batsman Daren Ganga was named as Test captain while Gayle took over as One Day captain. Gayle was subsequently named as captain for the tours of Zimbabwe and South Africa but he too became injured and all rounder Dwayne Bravo led the side in his absence.

Gayle was then named as captain for the Sri Lanka leg of the Digicel Home Series with Sarwan as his vice captain but with the important series against world champions to follow Sarwan has virtually put the issue to rest with his endorsement of Gayle to lead the West Indies team which is showing clear signs of progress under the Jamaican's stewardship.

The right hander who scored a critical century to lead West Indies to a six wicket win over Sri Lanka and prevent the first Caribbean whitewash by a visiting team said Gayle's calm demeanour is a benefit to the team.

"He is the most calm person I have ever seen on a cricket field, whether he is captain or a regular player, he has been very quiet in the dressing room and whenever he needs to say stuff he does say it, that's great,' said the magnanimous Sarwan.

"Everyone is very laid back, we know how West Indians are and when he needs to put his foot down he does put it down, no one comes out from their personality, no one is scared and that is really good for us, once everyone is calm in the dressing room and calm on the field we will get the best out of them," Sarwan reasoned, saying that Gayle is the best man to keep the troops calm in the heat of battle.

I must say- big-ups to Sarwan - that was positively Cuddy-esque of him. Considering that Gayle (due in no small part to the relative success he has had as captain) has effectively replaced him in the role that he had been groomed for over the last 4,5 years, I thought it was pretty big of him to essentially say 'yes, he is better than me for this post'. There are not many people who have the humility in them to acknowledge that and certainly not so whole-heartedly.

Bloody hell...it almost makes me a little suspicious!

Zimbabwe: the world watches

2008-04-01T11:22:00.002-04:00

The election results for Zimbabwe's elections are slowly trickling in - so slowly in fact, that it raises justifiable suspicion that dictator Robert Mugabe is trying once again, to thwart the will of the people.

Yes, I said dictator. Robert Mugabe had the chance to be a statesman - that time passed 8 years ago. He was a freedom fighter, widely and justifiably admired for freeing Zimbabwe from the oppressive white-dominated rule of Ian Smith.

But he has failed since then and hence disappointed right-thinking black people of conscience around the world. He's just turned into another petty, cruel, embarassing African dictator- freedom fighter turned horrible stereotype.

As I listen to the radio call-in program right now, one of the so-called 'Pan-Africanist' Mugabe apologists is trying to wrestle Tony Marshall into an ideological corner, arguing "wouldn't you agree that Robert Mugabe has done a lot for Zimbabwe" and then trying to justify his seizure of the white-owned farms in 2000 that, in many people's eyes, started the whole ball rolling.

Depending on where you stand, it brought down the wrath of racist white super-powers on him and Zimbabwe and they in turn started supporting the 'puppet' Movement for Democratic Change led by Morgan Tsvangirai OR it was the start of an oppressive and desperate time in Zimbabwean history where Mugabe used that and other ruses to hold onto power.

But I argue differently. The farm seizures were merely a red herring and I saw that from as far back as 2000. Mugabe never gave a shit about returning land seized during colonial times to black Zimbabweans, ok?

The real tipping point for Zimbabwe's descent into hell was in February 2000 when they held a referendum, that while it made minor news around the world, did not capture the headlines the way the farm seizures that started a few days later did. But I noticed it. And when the land seizures started, I saw it for what it was. So the real deal...

In February 2000, the ZANU-PF administration held a referendum they were widely expected to win. From the archives of the World Socialist Website (the first archive reference I could find to the referendum - like I said, it wasn't big news then):

Zimbabwe: Referendum defeat for Mugabe shakes Zanu-PF government
By Barbara Slaughter and Stuart Nolan
22 February 2000

Last week voters in Zimbabwe rejected the new constitution being proposed by President Robert Mugabe and the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (Zanu-PF). In a result that surprised most commentators, the vote was 578,000 in favour of the new constitution and 697,754 against. Turnout was low at just over 20 percent. Voters in the cities, like Harare and Bulawayo, voted No by three to one, whilst in the rural heartlands that were expected to vote Yes there were widespread abstentions.

Mugabe has declared that he will "abide by the will of the people". In an interview on the BBC, a spokesman for Zanu-PF said of the Mugabe presidency, "He shall rule this country for as long as he likes." But the vote was a huge blow to the party that has ruled Zimbabwe since independence in 1980.

In recent years there has been widespread opposition to Mugabe's authoritarian rule. Taking place in the run-up to parliamentary elections in April, the No vote in the referendum has been widely interpreted as a plebiscite on the Zanu-PF government and Mugabe's leadership.

Indeed it was. Referendums are funny that way. Often the people's rejection of a referendum is not so much a rejection of the issue at hand, but of the government of the day. The Bahamians rejected a perfectly reasonable referendum on women's rights in March 2002 and rejected Hubert Ingraham's Free National Movement in general elections three months later.

Mugabe saw the writing on the wall. Zimbabweans were pissed off with them, even though as the WSWS report indicates, he offered a 'sweetener' for them.

The proposed constitutional change was Mugabe's authoritarian response to the crisis facing his regime. Zanu-PF's propaganda declared that the new constitution was a final break with colonialism. Invoking Mugabe's national liberation credentials, they said that the No voters were "sell-out Zimbabweans" who wanted to retain a colonial-style constitution.

The main provision of the draft constitution was to strengthen Mugabe's grip on the presidency. Under the present constitution he should step down in two years time, when his current term expires. The proposed change would have limited future presidents to two terms, but as it was not retroactive, Mugabe could have stood for another two terms. The draft constitution would also have made his government and military officials immune from prosecution for any illegal acts committed while in office.

Mugabe added a clause empowering the government to seize land held by white farmers, demanding that the British government pay compensation. This was a ploy to win the support of the rural masses, whose land was stolen during the colonial era. The voters did not believe him, however. Since independence, and despite the enormous sacrifices made in the struggle against British colonial rule, the land redistribution promised has not materialised. More than 6 million black Zimbabweans are crowded into barren communal areas. The few transfers that have taken place have gifted the most fertile land to Zanu-PF officials and their relatives.

Unlike Ingraham, Mugabe was not about to go down like that. He saw the writing on the wall and used the land seizures as a cover for his greater aim - to hold power. He knew his standing and reputation within the Pan-Africanist and liberation movement. He knew that a simple power-grab would be too obvious, too blatant. He needed an enemy to frame himself against and an excuse for oppressing his own people. Hence, he painted it as a black-white, colonialist vs. liberationists issue.

But it never was. Mugabe has subverted the true intentions of the Pan-Africanist movement and is not worthy to join the (admittedly small) club of true liberator-statesmen such as Nelson Mandela and Julius Nyerere. He could have been a statesman. but instead he has put himself firmly in the company of African despots a la Sani Abacha and many others.

Moreover, he has brought disgrace to the Pan-African movement. These mealy-mouthed Pan-Africanists who run around defending him as if they are caught in some time warp where Mugabe is still a noble freedom fighter or some reality warp where Mugabe really gives a damn about his own people, SHOULD BE ASHAMED! Yes, I'm looking at you David Commissiong- you and your ilk. How can you claim to be a Pan-Africanist and turn a blind eye and deaf ear to the cruelty, privation and oppression that is REALLY being inflicted on African brothers and sisters in Zimbabwe? How can you ignore the people because you are so enamoured of the leader? Do you have no concept of what democracy is? If a black man is in charge, is that all it takes to be ok with you? Can you not see when black people treat their own abominably?

SHAME ON YOU!

*whew* I wanted to get this out for a long time - thank God for blogs...

It's up in the air...

2008-03-27T09:10:00.004-04:00

Noticed two interesting stories on air travel as I was doing my morning round of news reading.

First, this one from the UK, where the British government has decided against getting a private jet for the Prime Minister. The idea had first been mooted two years ago, under the previous Prime Minister Tony Blair, but present PM Gordon Brown, good Scot that he is, has decided that it was perfectly fine to continue travelling on privately chartered planes or military jets.

From MSNBC:

The plan was announced two years ago by then-Prime Minister Tony Blair — and immediately was dubbed "Blair Force One" by journalists.

But the Department for Transport said officials decided Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the royal family should continue to use scheduled flights or charter commercial planes when they need to fly overseas.

The plan had called for the government to acquire two planes — a large jet for overseas travel and a small aircraft for short-haul flights.

Transport Minister Jim Fitzpatrick said the government would lease a small plane for official travel within Britain.

Brown, a Scot, has a reputation for frugality and has taken steps to distance himself from the more flamboyant style of his predecessor.

In a statement to lawmakers, Fitzpatrick said there had been "substantial increases in the cost of buying and operating commercial aircraft" since the idea was raised in 2006. He said the new plan would be a better value and would cut emissions of carbon dioxide from official travel by about 10 percent.

This is interesting to me in light of the thwarted-for-now case of hubris and ego over in neighbouring Trinidad and Tobago, where Prime Minister Patrick Manning's government has onlyj ust backed down from their attempts at securing a private jet for the government, after denying initially that was what they were trying to do. They tried to duck around by claiming it was actually going to be acquired by the state-owned(!) Caribbean Airlines (formerly Bwee) and was not really for the government's use, but no-one was fooled. The Trinidad Express, in an editorial, opined:

Caribbean Airlines (CAL) will want the citizenry to believe that its decision to stall the plan to acquire an executive jet was based on the high principle of being determined not to go ahead with the transaction unless the contract included a watertight or, perhaps, more accurately in the context, an airtight anti-corruption clause.

But more citizens will be inclined to take the view, eagerly expressed by Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday, that the State airline's retreat was a "victory for the people", meaning those who made known their opposition to what was seen to be another example of the spendthrift ways of a revenue-rich administration whose leader, rather than set an example of fiscal restraint to the nation, was seen to be encouraging its traditional spendthrift ways fuelled, as he continues to be, by the grandiose delusions that often afflict prime ministers and presidents of so-called developing nations.

Certainly, public suspicion was aroused in 2006 when the media broke the news that Mr Manning and his wife had taken a "test drive" on a Bombardier executive jet, and while it was quelled by Minister Colm Imbert's assurances that the buying of a jet was nowhere on the horizon, when the jet flew into the news again, with CAL disclosing that it was getting into the private jet business on the basis of the Government not only providing the purchase money but taking on board all the financial risks, the public quite justifiably drew a connecting line between the "test drive" and that plan.

In this, I actually fully agreed with the views of Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday- and it is rare that I ever hold the same view as the Silver Fox! Really, if the Prime Minister of Britain, a genuine developed country and world power, does not need a private jet, what on earth does the Prime Minister of a small island (yes, Bim is smaller but looka, we all small, hear?) need a private jet for? Who is Manning? Who outside of the Caribbean, really, really want to see and meet with him so bad and so regularly that he needs a private jet? Stupsssssse... The only major regular travelling he would have to do wouldbe to various CARICOM meetings - aside from that, everything else is about average for the leader of any other developing country and FAR LESS than that required for the leaders of countries like Canada, France and the UK, none of which have private jets for their leaders.
Manning feel cause Trinidad have oil money that mean they rich? When the average Trini is still poorer than the average Bajan? It appalls me that the leader of a country that could only afford to introduce universal and free secondary education a mere 8 years ago and only started paying for tertiary education at UWI a year and a half ago, want to play powerful-foolish. Skipper, you ent nearly reach jet status yet.

Next thing now - on the back page of today's Nation newspaper, there is a story about how badly the merger of LIAT and the former Caribbean Star (and the rampant eye-jucking LIAT has gleefully engaged in ever since) has affected regional travel. According to St. Lucia's tourism Minister, Allan Chastanet, intra-regional travel has dropped by anywhere from 30 to 40 per cent. The story also gives dismal estimations from other sources, such as the president of the Barbados Hotel and Tourism Association (BHTA) Alvin Jemmott who stated that the local tourism sector lost BD$5 million, because of a 16 per cent drop in CARICOM travellers. The Barbados Statistical Service estimated that 13 000 (16%) less visitors came from CARICOM countries, not including Trinidad, last year. For Trinidad, usually one of our most reliable CARICOM tourist sources, there was a 12.2% drop in visitors.

It cannot go on so. Simply put. I was not neccessarily fond of Allan Chastanet's stance of not supporting LIAT financially and bringing in American Eagle to compete against it because I felt it put more pressure on the islands that did contribute, like Barbados, St. Vincent and Antigua. But he may well have been right. Things are NOT getting better at LIAT. In fact, it seems that the lack of competition has made them ease off and relax and things are now patently worse. And the prices are astro-fucking-nomical! I can't explain it, I can't justify it. I did a whole long piece last year comparing LIAT's prices to that of budget airlines in Europe, such as Ryanair and Easyjet, which travel comparable distances. It takes about as long to get from one European capital to the other as it takes to get from one island to the other - it's the same distance, the same amount of fuel, yet the prices are up to twice as much! It cannot be justified - all the lot of excuses LIAT is giving us, it is becoming increasingly clear that the problem is THEM. Poor management, poor service - just piss poor.

Regional governments need to do something. Tourism is the life blood of most of our economies. A drop in intra-regional travel is a serious problem and it cannot be offset by the benefit of making LIAT profitable. If we need to run LIAT like a state-run transport service, which is subsidised, so be it. If we need to encourage budget airlines to come into the Caribbean and give LIAT a run for their money so be it. But the present situation is untenable.

Hillary's last-gasp race-baiting attempt

2008-03-26T09:02:00.008-04:00

Captain...the ship is sinking...

Well, surprise, surprise. The Clinton campaign is race-baiting again. Only this time, instead of letting one of her surrogates like her husband or Geraldine Ferraro or BET founder Robert Johnson do it, Hillary is doing it herself.

In a press conference yesterday in Pennsylvania, Hillary tried to stir back up the racial row over the comments made by Barack Obama's pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, saying:

I think, given all we have heard and seen, he would not have been my pastor.... We don't have a choice when it comes to our relatives. We have a choice when it comes to our pastors and the church we attend.... You know, I spoke out against Don Imus, saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that....I just think you have to speak out against that.

Mm. Mmmmmm... give me a minute here. Lord, give me the serenity ...

You know seeing and hearing the tactics of the Clinton campaign, I really do need to hold a little prayer every now and then. The unmitigated gall is TRYING.

After being largely silent and refusing to play politics on this controversy as it raged for the last two weeks, isn't it passing strange that all of a sudden, Hillary seems to feel it's necessary to point this out?

Particularly after Obama has already 'spoken out' as she has urged, against his pastor's comments?

Particularly after he then went on to not only speak out against Wright's comments but to give a widely-heralded, historic speech on race and racism in America, where he addressed the fears and suspicions of both black and white and urged the country to move forward together?

Moreover, isn't it rather bold-faced of Hillary to posture as if she is so anti-racism when she herself has admitted she was a 'Goldwater Girl' in her youth? You know, a supporter of Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, one of only five non-southern Republicans to vote against the Civil Rights Act? Maybe we should wonder about the sincerity of Hillary's committment to civil rights and justice. After all, if her candidate had succeeded, segregation could well still be in place, blacks would still be prevented from voting, etc. etc. Perhaps we should wonder and cast asperions on Hillary because of this. After all, you can't choose your family, but you can choose which presidential candidate you support.

Hmm... so what could inspire Hillary to suddenly decide to try to stroke the dying embers of the Obama-Wright controversy? Could it be...possibly...that she has been under attack for the last few news cycles for her big fat 'misspeak' on her trip to Bosnia in 1996? You know, the one where she has repeatedly said she landed under sniper fire and had to sprint, head down to her vehicle? And then...whoopsie...it turned out that no such thing had happened, that they had a very pleasant landing and ceremony, including a poem and some flowers from a little Bosnian girl?

Could it actually be that Hillary is trying to deflect attention from her lie? Noo....couldn't possibly be. I mean, if she was, I think she would come up with something less blatantly obvious than that. Hillary's slicker than that right? She cannot possibly hold her own well-educated countrymen in such contempt that she thinks they are so stupid they cannot see this for the obvious, desperate attempt it is. It's actually kinda embarrassing, it's so obvious. She could have at least waited a few days til after her Bosnia controversy had died down to not make it look like a blatant, desperate attempt to distract everyone. Because as it is, most of the headlines I've seen are still linking it to the Bosnia lie and framing it as an attempt at distraction.

Damn...surely Hillary can wag the dog better than that. I... I'm not even mad anymore - just embarrassed for her. I want to avert my eyes but I can't. The writing is on the wall and ...whatever. It's the desperate flailings of a sinking campaign. Who cares?

Historic... is all I can say

2008-03-18T12:44:00.004-04:00

I will confess I was nervous...scared even when I read this morning that Barack Obama was going to be giving this big speech on race. Coming on the heels of all of this negative press about comments made by his reverend Jeremiah Wright about white American racism and Geraldine Ferraro's comments and the way this has all been spun and spun, I was very nervous.

But Obama did the absolute best thing he could do in the circumstances, but not something that many politicians, focus-grouped to death as they are, would dare do.

He spoke the truth.

I have not had the opportunity to actually hear it as yet- hoping to see it tonight on CNN or youtube, but it was...past incredible. I really think it will go down in history.

See for yourself.

A More Perfect Union"
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
Constitution Center
Tuesday, March 18th, 2008
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

As Prepared for Delivery

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild."

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today – a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."

"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

I'm not going to lie... I'm crying right now.

Damn Ungrateful Negroes!

2008-03-18T09:50:00.002-04:00

Or so says Tampa Bay Times writer Bill Maxwell. In his column, he claims that African Americans have betrayed poor Hillary Clinton in the worst way.

Says Maxwell:

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton should be leery of ever trusting the word of another black person, especially the word of elected officials, celebrities and other elites. She most certainly should never again trust the word of black preachers.

Too many blacks have betrayed Clinton. They have been disloyal. They have lied to her, many to her face.

Disloyal? This really rings of some house-slave mentality to me - that blacks should be 'loyal' to a kindly white authority figure. But... there's more!

Whenever members of the Congressional Black Caucus needed extra clout to help them with black-related legislation, they turned to Clinton. When black leaders needed a powerful voice to add weight to a symbolic gesture, such as the commemoration of a civil rights cause or an event, they called Clinton. When they needed a keynote speaker for this or that gala, they called Clinton.

She had no way of knowing that reality would be turned on its head and that all of her good deeds and generosity would be forgotten and that many blacks would one day paint her as their enemy. She misjudged her supporters as did the character in Shakespeare's play Henry VI, who said: "In thy face I see the map of honor, truth, and loyalty."

What Clinton saw was the face of Judas and a map of dishonor, duplicity and betrayal. The ugly irony of the betrayal is that Clinton is the same as she always was. She has not changed. All of the votes she cast for urban policies that aided blacks remain in the Congressional Record. That has not changed.

Wow. And here I thought American democracy was mature enough that people were past the idea that voters should ever be beholden to a politician. To be honest, that bit gave me a nasty flashback to some of the sycophantic politics I saw when I was studying in my 'other island' Jamaica, where people were so blindly beholden to a certain political party that they could not even see to look out for their own best interests. The politicians could take the worst kind of advantage of them and they would still be 'PNP/Labourite til mi dead'.

Is Mr. Maxwell serious? Frankly, African Americans shoulda 'dash way' the Clintons long time. For every thing he can list that the Clintons 'did for blacks' there are dreadful things like the disparity in crack/cocaine sentencing and so-called welfare reform that damaged the black community.

Moreover this idea that black people should be grateful to white people for defending their BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS drives me up a WALL! Do we really think so little of ourselves that we feel we need to be grateful to white people for just acknowledging that we are human and deserve to be treated as such? That as long as a white person does not express overt hostility for us, that they are our friend? Is that all we require? No-one dares suggest that the Jews should be 'grateful' to the Germans, even though the Germans have spent the last half-century or so since their defeat in WWII apologising, making reparations and generally self-flagellating themselves over the Holocaust - on a level that whites in the West whose ancestors were responsible for slavery and colonialism and Jim Crow and segregation and who have themselves benefited directly from these things, will NEVER do. Yet no-one tells Jews they should be grateful for these offerings by the Germans - because we know it is puny in comparison to the magnitude of what has gone.

Whew...

Ok then... Plus Maxwell conveniently ignores that the Clinton campaign had substantial black support (she LED Obama handily amongst blacks until January - it was WHITE folks who were the bulwark of his initial support and remain so) until they decided to indulge in nasty race-baiting that even offended their fellow whites. THAT is when blacks 'betrayed' Clinton - the only pity is that it took them so long!

Do the math and keep the faith

2008-03-07T11:32:00.002-04:00

(Picture credit: Mark Alan Stamaty, Slate.com)

I have started to hear rumblings of gloom and even rage from fellow Obama supporters since mini Super Tuesday (as I dubbed it) where Sen. Hilary Clinton won the Rhode Island, Ohio and Texas primaries, compared to Obama's Vermont primary and Texas caucus victories.

Peoples - keep the faith. I'm not asking you to do this based just on blind faith, but on cold, hard math.

Lest you doubt me, take a look at this article by Jonathan Alter of Newsweek.

A few of the more delightful excerpts are below.

He leads with this:

Hillary Clinton won big victories Tuesday night in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. But she's now even further behind in the race for the Democratic nomination. How could that be? Math. It's relentless.

To beat Barack Obama among pledged delegates, Clinton now needs even bigger margins in the 12 remaining primaries than she needed when I ran the numbers on Monday—an average of 23 points, which is more than double what she received in Ohio.

Her only slim hope lies in winning the popular vote. But alas...

Clinton's only hope lies in the popular vote—a yardstick on which she now trails Obama by about 600,000 votes. Should she end the primary season in June with a lead in popular votes, she could get a hearing from uncommitted superdelegates for all the other arguments that she would make a stronger nominee (wins the big states, etc.). If she loses both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, no argument will cause the superdelegates to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters. It will be over.

He then presents a dream (for the Clintonistas) scenario in which Hilary takes all the remaining races.

In order to show how deep a hole she's in, I've given her the benefit of the doubt every week. That's 12 victories in a row, bigger in total than Obama's run of 11 straight. And this time I've assigned her even larger margins than I did before in Wyoming, North Carolina, Indiana and Kentucky.

So here we go again:

Let's assume that on Saturday in Wyoming, Clinton's March 4 momentum gives her an Ohio-style 10-point win, confounding every expectation. Next Tuesday in Mississippi, where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary, she shocks the political world by again winning 55-45.

Then on April 22, the big one—Pennsylvania—and it's a Clinton blowout: 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 3 and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6. The Hoosiers go for Clinton 55-45 and the same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state. Enough blacks desert Obama to give North Carolina to Hillary in another big win, 55-45, netting her seven more delegates.May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. Another 60-40 landslide on May 20 in Kentucky nets her 11 more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Ooops! He loses there 52-48. Clinton wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3 and the scheduled primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Clinton pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates.

Given that I've put not a thumb but my whole fist on the scale, this fanciful calculation gives Hillary the lead, right? Actually, it makes the score 1,625 to 1,584 for Obama. A margin of 39 pledged delegates may not seem like much, but remember, the chances of Obama losing state after state by 20-point margins are slim to none.

Now, Clinton is unlikely to win Wyoming. Its immediate geographical and ideological neighbours of North Dakota, Colorado, Utah, Nebraska and Idaho have all gone for Obama in healthy doses. A little further across the mid-west, Kansas and Iowa have also gone for Obama. Those mid-west white folks seem to either love Obama or loathe Hilary - or perhaps both.

And then Mississippi - Hilary can expect to be trounced in the blackest state in the Union - 37% of Mississippi's population is black and we know how that has gone.

For North Carolina and West Virginia, the results of the South Carolina and Virginia contests should be instructive. And so on.

So the pure, unspun truth is this - barring some cataclysmic mis-step by Obama that turns everyone off in massive numbers, Clinton cannot surpass his delegate count. And the DNC head honchos, though some may be beholden to the Clinton, are not stupid. If they give her the nomination through super-delegate votes or through allowing the Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated as is, they know it will damage the party. They are not so suicidal as to want to risk all of their own fortunes for Clinton alone. She is not that powerful. And after she loses this nomination, she will no longer be the force in the party she once was. The Clinton era will draw to a close.

So to my fellow Obama supporters, I say again - be calm and be not disturbed.

And so we go on...

2008-03-05T08:42:00.002-04:00

Hilary Clinton made what her aides are sure to term as a 'comeback' last night, winning the Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island primaries.

Barack Obama won Vermont and seems on the way to winning the Texas caucus (which apportions a third of the delegates).

Honestly, I was hoping that last night would have been the knock-out punch for the Clinton campaign, because I am tired of this race dragging on, especially in the face of the fact that the Republicans last night all but confirmed John McCain as their nominee as he passed 1191 delegate threshold and Mike Huckabee dropped out of the race.

It is not so much the race dragging on that bothers me as HOW the race is going to drag on. The Clintonistas have been trying and will continue to try every dirty trick in their arsenal, regardless of the fact that such undignified scrapping hurts the party's chances in the general elections. I know Hilary's campaign strategy for the generals was always built on a theory of 50 + 1 - as in, just get your own camp in your corner and scrape another 1%. They had to go that way since nearly half of the country (about 48%) say they will never vote for her.

Hence their "kitchen sink" strategy puzzles me because it seems that they are banking on her getting the nomination with this same divisive, abrasive strategy. Even if they do manage to get their own candidate through, how do they expect to get the 50 when they have alienated a large portion of the Democratic camp? Forget the 1! I mean this is a group that goes out of their way to insult and belittle the people who are voting for Obama - I have never seen anything like it - it's one thing to insult your opponents but why insult the voters - especially those on your team?

I predict that even if Hilary wins the nomination, that she will not be able to muster enough support from her 50 to win the general election. It's not like she can depend on new voters, Independent voters or cross-over voters either - those people are with Obama on the one side and McCain on the other.

Anyhow, this is probably all still a moot point, for as of this morning, she is still behind in the delegate count - according to CNN's estimate, 1365 to his 1451. Of that, she is behind by 130 votes in the pledged (popular) delegate count and leads by a mere 44 in the superdelegate count - and superdelegates are by no means a done deal, unlike the pledged delegates.

She was already so far behind Obama that she needs to win by huge margins just about everywhere to surpass him - either that or depend on the superdelegates to flout the will of the people. Good luck with either of those strategies.

So on we go...

Things that make you go hmmm...

2008-03-04T08:20:00.003-04:00

Meant to blog about this since yesterday when the story came out that former Prime Minister Owen Arthur is "on the war path" after the new Prime Minister David Thompson let go a number of consultants attached to the PM's office and also revealed their salaries.

Said Arthur angrily:

There is also absolutely no doubt this was intended to embarrass the persons referenced, after they have been deprived by Thompson of a source of their livelihood.

On this I agree with him. However - boo-hoo, too bad. They were public servants, paid out of the public purse - why should their salaries be private? We're entitled to know. I find Bajans are soooo cagey when it comes to ...well, anything, but especially money matters. Like, with classifieds ads - at least 50% of classified ads that I see for cars and real estate, don't have the price there - WHY would you be cagey about the price of something you're SELLING? There is no good reason except Bajans' ridiculous caginess.

Ok, that was a side-rant, back to the issue at hand.

What I found... interesting was this part:

He said he was most upset about the firing of Victor Hinkson, a research assistant who earned just $1 000 a month, after losing his job at the Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation after 11 months and lived off a $300 pension because he was ineligible for gratuity.

"He then went home to rest because he is very ill. I paid him $1 000 to help him out, and each of these people were doing something specific...

What has me is that he sounds genuinely indignant about Hinkson's situation. Note that statement - "I paid him $1000 to help him out". Do politicians really get to the point where they genuinely believe the public coffers are their private fund? Because it was not Owen Arthur who paid Hinkson $1000 to "help him out", it was the tax payers of Barbados who paid that. And we might argue that there are lots of us as deserving of help as Hinkson. Is the public purse to be used to 'give someone a bligh' as Jamaicans say? I was amazed at this comment.

Moreover, despite the fact that this happened under Arthur's tenure as PM, was it appropriate for him to unilaterally contact the press and make a statement on this? If the BLP had an issue with these firings, should not a directive have come from the party's senior leadership on how to address the issue? After all, Mia Mottley is the party leader now and the party should speak with one voice. On an issue like this, it should be a senior voice speaking. Arthur is no longer senior - he is not the leader, nor the deputy leader, nor a Shadow Minister on anything. His comments just added fuel to the fire which blazed on the call-in programmes yesterday.

****************
In other news - yet another one leaves the NCF as today's paper confirmed the rumours that former CEO Ian Estwick has been let go. I know people were annoyed by the way the Nation reported the story last week, making it seem as if everyone left all at once because of the new administration, whereas only the two most recent departures (Marketing officer Carol Roberts was let go over the weekend) could really be attributed directly to the new administration.

But... it does seem like quite a few people have left in recent months. Could it not be that they saw the writing on the wall and jumped before they were pushed? I'm just saying...

******************

In other, other news - TODAY IS MINI SUPER TUESDAY! Primaries and caucuses in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island. Today really should be the day that Hilary Clinton is knocked out of the race for good and Barack Obama is pretty much confirmed as the nominee of the Democrats. However, the damn Clintonistas keep moving the goal posts and it's really starting to piss me off. After saying for the last few weeks that Texas and Ohio were Hilary's firewalls and she would have to win both to stay in the race, they are now suggesting she may stay in anyhow.

Now they are trying to shift the onus to Obama, saying that...get this - if he loses any single primary or caucus today, it is an indication that Hilary should stay in the race.

Say it with me now...big long, dutty stuppsssssse! You know what, this is just a spite thing now. I don't think she has any genuine belief or hope that she can still win the nomination, she is just out to deliberately undermine and divide the party now ahead of Barack's nomination. With the Republicans holding their nose and closing ranks around McCain, she is willing to undermine her own party's chances in the hope that she can get a look-in in four years' time after McCain has become President.

What wickedness. I should be appalled but it's Hilary - I'm no longer surprised.

Makes me wanna holler...

2008-02-26T08:59:00.003-04:00

I was simply seething when I heard about this last night - apparently, staffers from the desperate-ass Clinton campaign have been circulating a 2006 photo of Barack Obama on a visit to Africa, in traditional Somali dress that he received as a gift.

Now, we KNOW what this is about. We know it. But of course, the Clinton campaign issued a disingenous non-denial denial, with campaign manager Maggie Williams trying to turn it around on the Obama camp:

Enough. If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.

Ooooh...oooh....ohhh...breathe...woooooosahhh!

Not working.

Bitch puh-leese! Don't act like you don't know what is offensive about this. It is not the picture itself, it is the intent behind the distribution of the picture. It is the fact that Obama has been the victim of a disgusting, Islamophobic, xenophobic smear campaign and this ties right into what the crazies want to believe. I bet they're gleefully including this pic in the latest round of their smear emails now.

I am simply...astounded at the dirtiness of the Clinton campaign. Not being an American or even living there, I used to wonder about the vitriol aimed at the Clintons and wondered why people seemed to be so rabidly against them. Really I had dismissed it as right-wing hating.

But these kind of tactics...against their OWN. It's unbelievably nasty. No wonder...

Just so you know Ri-ri :)

2008-02-22T09:09:00.002-04:00

The silent majority spoke last night in Independence Square.

Since Rihanna's rise, too often the vocal and vicious minority have been the ones to have their say, on the call-in programmes, on the streets, in the gossip blogs. They are few but they are loud and for too long they have been allowed to give off the wrong impression - that Bajans somehow grudge Rihanna her success, that we're not happy for her and proud of her. In fact, even Rihanna herself had gotten the wrong impression and in several recent interviews, had seem embittered towards Bajans.

That is why I am glad that the silent majority spoke last night. Thousands upon thousands of Bajans packed every point in and around Independence Square to show Rihanna how Bajans really feel about her. I was there and it was absolutely jam-packed - there were people on top of building, on top of bus-sheds, and in the trees in the square itself. People took up every possible vantage point. People from every cross-section of this society came out - I saw large numbers of white Bajans (often a reclusive group, especially at large, free public events), Indians, Chinese. I saw lots of really old people, leaning on walking sticks and being buffeted by the large, shifting crowd. I saw tons of little children, propped up high on their parents' shoulders so they could see the screen, or the slightly older ones, leaning against their parents in exhaustion and determination.

And when the Swing Bridge opened and Rihanna arrived on the yacht, they roared. It was touching. So touching she was moved to tears.

It really was fantastic. I think for many people, it was an opportunity to show forcefully that we really do support Rihanna. We are proud of her accomplishments and the attention it brings to Barbados. We revel in the fact that in every live interview and awards show, her Bajan accent still shines through and that she shows her love for the island whenever she gets the chance.

The few and venomous may still have their say on the call-in programs and the letters to the editor, but the usually quiet majority have had their say and shown the truth.

More perspective on the SJPP hair issue

2008-02-22T09:02:00.002-04:00

I am glad to have the mother that I do. She has taught me to have an open mind and to be curious and to apply empathy and reason to my decisions. After reading my previosu blog post about the brouhaha surrounding the young Senator Damien Griffith and the students at SJPP, she sent me this email, which I thought was so spot-on and succint that I decided to share it.

Take it away, Mum...

-------

1. Why according to the deputy principal of the SJPP are dreadlocks unhealthy?

2. Is all long hair unhealthy? Or just the long hair of black people? and specifically the long hair of young black men? Is the long hair of white women unhealthy? Is the young hair of women of ('Indian') asian descent unhealthy?

3. Would the students have been asked to leave if they were 42 and 44 instead of being 22 and 24? And does this mean that the SJPP is discriminating against them because of their age? Does the Barbados constitution prohibit age discrimination? Should it?

3. Carlos Alleyne and Damien Weekes are men, they are NOT boys. Since these men are 22 and 24 can we fairly assume that they have been tax payers at some point of their lives between school leaving at 16 and being at SJPP at 22 and 24? Is the SJPP still a tax funded institution? Is the deputy principal's salary paid partly out of the tax money of these young men? Are the bricks and mortar of the SJPP maintained out of these young men's tax money? Is is right to take the tax money of these young men and then to refuse them a tax payer funded educaton?

4. Does the Barbados government exempt citizens from paying taxes based on hair length? on hair style? or hair clenliness? Does not the government take tax money from long haired people? Dirty haired people? People with unusual hair styles? Do we have a moral right to refuse tax funded services to others based on hair length, or style? Should we have this moral right? Should we have the legal right to refuse tax funded services based on hair length, hair style, hair cleanliness? How about hair color? Should we for example refuse tax funded services to all red haired people? Blond haired people? Black haired people?

5. I think that we have to be real real careful. 2 years ago the QEH ambulance service or some of its employees refused service to my father because he was too far?(in St. Peter) How far is too far? Who decides what is too far? And if the decider himself one day happens to be too far what happens to him? Should we have refused ambulance service to the people in the accident at Joe's River? And if not why not? Joes River is farther away than Heywoods? What happens to those citizens who live too far?

6. I think that we have to be very careful making decisions based on unreason and emotion. And lastly if there is room in the heart, then there is room in the house. When there is no room in the heart then there is no room in the house.

Can Bajans please get a life?

2008-02-21T11:39:00.002-04:00

I have up to now avoided commenting on the 'issue' regarding Senator Damien Griffith's corn-rowed hairtstyle - mainly because I am amazed that this is an issue at all and I have been hoping it will just fade away.

But today's back page story in the Nation added more fuel to the fire, with the story of how the Samuel Jackman Prescod Polytechnic has banned students with locks or plaits from entering the school premises.

First thing - haven't we been through all of this already? I thought Liz Thompson had tackled that issue into submission back in the mid-90s when people gave her licks for wearing her hair in natural twists. People screamed then that the style was 'inappropriate' for a parliamentarian and Minister and that she was trying to look like a 'rude girl' and so on and so on.

I thought we had been through this already when Edwin Yearwood won every title in Crop-Over 95 and people put him through the wringer for what they perceived as a 'bad boy' hairstyle.

I really thought we had been through this and got past this already. It is 2008 right?

In the decade since then, we have made such strides that I notice more and more women at all levels of society are wearing their hair in natural styles and it's now mainstream, not marginal. I think the kicker for me was when I attended the Christmas luncheon of the Barbados Architects Society at the Barbados Yacht Club. Now architecture is still somewhat an upper middle class profession - there was a disproportionate number of white architects (disproportionate to their percentage of the population, I mean) and the fact that the luncheon was held at the Yacht Club spoke volumes. And the fact that of the black female architects there, all but one had her hair in dreadlocks or twists or some other natural style, showed me how far I thought we had come.

Hence I am amazed that this is becoming an issue. I am only heartened to see that more people are coming out against the backward comments of Garrison Secondary principal Matthew Farley than would have come out in defense back in the mid-90s.

Still I have heard far too many people sputtering and fuming about the Senator's hair style and saying it is not appropriate for someplace like Parliament. And I have to ask why?
What strikes me is that none of the people who have complained about his hairstyle have been able to articulate specifically what is wrong with Griffith's hairstyle. They only say it is inappropriate and it will lead to a drop in standards. What exactly makes his hair style inappropriate for the job at hand? Is Parliament supposed to be a place where your external appearance matters more than your intellectual capacity? Is it a catwalk? Is it a place where uniformity is part of the requirements so as to maintain order in every aspect? Is it the disciplined (armed)forces?

These people are refusing to acknowledge that the standards of what is 'appropriate' changes from generation to generation. There was a time when it was appropriate for European men to wear long hair, stockings and dress-like gowns. There was a time when it was not appropriate for women to wear pants. There was a time when it was not appropriate to go to church without a hat. All of these things have changes - I do not think it means that standards haev deteriorated - a change is not the same as deterioration. It just means they have changed.

Moreover, their comments smack of a sad, colonialist mindset that still seems to lurk in the shadows of our consciousness and tell us that we should be ashamed of whatever is inherently our culture. And this lurking mindset always seems to manifest itself most vociferously when it comes to hair (though there are other areas it manifests itself more quietly - for example, why is it in a tropical country that few workplaces and no schools allow people to wear arm-holed tops? What is so offensive about a shoulder?).

What exactly is wrong with Griffith's corn-rows? It is neatly done. By that same token, what is wrong with the hairstyles of the students at SJPP? I saw pictures of two of the young men in question and their hair is immaculately neat and pulled back so as to not get caught in any of the tools they would be using.

Furthermore, I find it absurd that at a TERTIARY INSTITUTION where grown adults (the young men in the paper are 22 and 24!) are PAYING for their courses, that they are being told how they must wear their hair.

I don't believe in this at the tertiary level. I do believe a certain level of uniformity is necessary in primary and secondary school for several reasons. One, that children can be exceptionally cruel, particularly if someone's appearance is even the slightest bit 'strange' and having a uniform helps maintain equality among the students and cut down on some cliquism. Two, that deciding how to dress and wear your hair should be a decision made by an adult for themselves - I do not think children, who do not have rights to make most other decisions for themselves, should be allowed to decide how they should be attired. Rights come with responsibilities and since children have few to none, they should wait until they have responbilities and can deal with the consequences of their decisions to be given certain rights.

But! When you are an adult, it should be up to you, within reason, to make these most basic decisions for yourself. Unless your decision on how to comport yourself causes unreasonable difficulty or distress to the institution or others with whom you interact at the institution (for example, an overly revealing outfit that might make someone who has to interact with you uncomfortable) why should you be prohibited from making that decision for yourself?

And why should others take issue with it?

Shinin' - Barack Obama 10-0!

2008-02-20T09:14:00.006-04:00

I listened to three speeches last night as Senator Barack Obama extended his February caucus and primary winning streak to 10-0 over Senatory Hilary Clinton.

Both Clinton and McCain took the time out to take swipes at Obama. Clinto was so sour that she has completely abandoned the basic courtesy of extending congratulations to her opponent on his victory (though admittedly it must be getting kind of monotonous for her by now - "Congratulations on Maryland. And D.C. And Delaware. And Washington State. And Idaho. And Nebraska... and so on).

What really struck me though was McCain's speech. He took some hard swipes at Obama, making digs about "eloquent but empty speeches". Whatever - I'm not bothered - in fact, I'm glad. Cos the thing is, he completely ignored Hilary Clinton. I did not hear a single subtle or unsubtle, blatant or veiled, oblique or obvious reference to her in his speech.

It brings to mind a quote from Riley Freeman of Boondocks - to paraphrase "they only hate you when you're shinin'...if folks ain't mad at you, you're doing something wrong!"

McCain is attacking Obama because he realises what the rest of us do - that this will most likely be Obama's nomination. He is the substantive opponent and McCain has already started sharpening his rhetoric against the person he thinks he will run against.

Guyana - not another massacre?

2008-02-18T10:30:00.004-04:00

The Facebook nick of one of my friends just summed it up - 'What's going on in Guyana at all?'

Barely three weeks after the slaughter in Lusignan, yet another massacre was carried out last night in Bartica, with reports of a dozen people being murdered.

The Stabroek News reports:

Gunmen last night slaughtered around a dozen persons in a major assault on Bartica reminiscent of the Lusignan massacre and the dead included at least three policemen, reports this morning said.

The hour-long strafing which saw the criminals overrunning the Bartica Police Station and residents locking up in their homes raises major questions about the aims of the gunmen and the ability of the security forces to respond.

While it was difficult to obtain precise information on the chaos that ensued, Stabroek News has been able to confirm as best as possible the names of some of the dead. They are: Edwin Gilkes of Banks DIH/Citizens Bank's premises on First Avenue; Mervin Ferreira, a guard of CBR Mining and Marcus Gonsalves, a teller of Citizen's Bank whose body was found in his car on First Avenue. The surnames of the dead policemen have been given as Osbourne, Zakir and Fredericks.

Also among the dead are five persons who had slung up their hammocks on the wharf reportedly awaiting transportation to go about their business. They were gunned down in the wild firing that occurred as terror gripped the gateway to the interior. The five are believed to be employees of Budhoo's General Store. Two policemen and several other injured persons were to be transported this morning to the Georgetown Hospital via Baganara.

Commander of E&F Division, Gavin Primo told reporters last night that his information at the time was that sometime around 9:40 pm gunmen stormed the police station located at First Avenue, Bartica. At around 10:45 pm when he was contacted, Primo said that the gunmen had by then moved down several streets and were shooting indiscriminately.

To be honest, I'm just reporting this. I have no words. I don't know what to think. Guyana has been getting more violent in recent years but this is unprecedented. This is Jamaican-style murder - but worse. In my three years in JA, I never heard of a dozen people being killed. And it's just so random. There is no kind of logic, not even by standards of criminal logic.

It's not even like the gunmen were attacking a rival group and people got caught in the crossfire or like they were attacking a rival neighbourhood in vengeance for something or the other. It seems like the sole aim is just to spread terror of random violence.

I'm only presuming that this too is the work of Rondell 'Fineman' Rawlins who has vowed to wreak terror on Guyana until his kidnapped pregnant girlfriend is found. But... why not at least attack those you think are responsible? Why attack completely innocent, random passers-by? This is just blowing my mind.

What is Guyana going to do?

What has Rihanna done for Bim?

2008-02-12T09:02:00.000-04:00

Well plenty actually.

The question in the headline is often asked - usually dismissively, by the vocal minority of Rihanna-haters here in Barbados. And even with her Grammy success, up to yesterday, I still heard someone on a call-in programme with the same old clap trap - cautioning that we should 'wait and see' what she can do for Barbados first.

I'm tired of hearing people wield this question in this 'aha!' way to diminish Rihanna's accomplishments in the music industry. First thing, she doesn't have to do a bloody thing for Barbados if she doesn't want to - Monica cooked her food, not the rest of we. Lots of people forget where they come from - not that this would be laudable.

But she does do things for Bim which is why I am fed up with the not-sufficiently-informed Rihanna supporters who can only muster in response 'she's putting Barbados on the map' or 'no-one knew of us before' or 'it's great for the tourist industry in some indirect way'.

Nah! I have far better, more concrete answers than that. In the 3 short years since she was discovered and signed to Def Jam, Rihanna has done quite a lot for Barbados, particularly its music industry. She also does work for the tourist industry - she is presently the face of one of the BTA's advertising campaigns and has been for two years. I discovered that in 2006 when I was in London, stepping out of the train at the cold and foggy White City tube station and there before me was a massive Rihanna. Well rather... a massive billboard with Rihanna's image, promoting Bim. It wwas random and definitely took me by surprise seeing it there, but it made me beam with pride. The folks at the BTA aren't stupid - they use Rihanna's image because the image she projects is positive for Barbados, people worldwide identify her with Bim, just as people identify Bob Marley with Jamaica and the JTB has used his image to promote the island.

But! Aside from that, there are a number of concrete ways in which Rihanna both directly and indirectly has done things for Barbados, particularly our music industry.

Several artistes have benefited from the increased attention on Barbados' music industry and have directly received opportunities through Rihanna's SRP management team.
- Local singer Dwane Husbands was featured with her on the single 'Dem Haters' which came on her second album. This gave him unprecedented global exposure that he would not have had otherwise. Rupee also featured on a single with her (Hurricane)and though he also had a label deal at the time, Rihanna's star was already beginning to shine brighter and it gave him additional exposure. As a musician, that is something to put on your resume.

-Shontelle Layne got her first crack at global exposure when Rihanna featured on the remix of her hit song Roll with J-Status. From there she got a song-writing contract with Rihanna's SRP management team and that eventually led to the international label music contract she has now.

Evan Rogers who discovered Rihanna put it very succintly in explaining the direct connection between Rihanna's success and the opportunities now open to other Barbadian artists.

He added that Barbados' music was "just a gold mine that's going to become more and more discovered with people like Rihanna, Shontelle and others".

"But it takes somebody to break through, and Rihanna is really very excited about helping. She wants Shontelle to be successful. That's one of her best qualities, she's really happy for people.

You need one to open the door and Rihanna has definitively done this. The girl works hard - how many artistes do you see bringing out three albums in two years? Her label has her chipping.

Anyhow, I digress. More on what she has done - more indirect stuff but no less significant.

- It was no doubt due in no small part to the 'Rihanna connection' that her label-mate, singer/songwriter Neyo chose to come to Barbados at the height of his success for his debut album and play in a relatively small venue. Considering how huge his album was at that point in time, do you think that the only place where he had an invitation to perform was Barbados? How much of a dent can our 1/4 million people make in record sales anyhow? How beneficial was it to him? Yet he came. That has led to his returning to Bim since then to produce tracks for himself and Rihanna WITH LOCAL STUDIOS. Would they have gotten that work were it not for Rihanna?

- I think we can safely say that Livvi Franc's recently announced record deal has something to do with the fact that Rihanna's success has turned the eyes of the global music industry towards Barbados as a place where talent can be found. The fact that she is in appearance (leggy, young, light skinned) and music-wise, in the 'Rihanna mould' is hardly a coincidence either.

Now consider that Rihanna is only 19, has only been in the music biz for 3 years and still does not have a great deal of control or power yet in her career. She's not yet in a position to 'call the shots'. Yet the little bit of influence that she does have, she has used well.

So the next time someone asks you 'what has Rihanna done for Bim?' I expect you to have some better answers.

Keeping the media on a leash

2008-02-11T10:26:00.000-04:00

Patrick Hoyos wrote a fantastic piece for his 'Hoyos File' column in the Business Authority today, about why journalists in Bim are still so constrained in what they can report. Well...legitimate journos that is. It is also available on the Broad Street Journal site.

In he addressed spot on the reasons why legitimate journalists have to be cautious in what they write, even as the uninformed and strident flagellate the local media as 'lapdogs' and worse for not reporting every rumour that comes along.

A few quotes from the piece:

The current Defamation Act, passed under the BLP administration, replaced the old libel and slander laws, but it took so long to come out of wherever it had to go to get passed, and went through so much watering down that it was a big disappointment to me, at least.

There were some easements made in reporting on public affairs, but the main problem we all face as journalists and publishers was not addressed, and it concerns what I think of as the crossover from private to public life, and the individual’s change in status in terms of defamation when that occurs.

Nevetheless, I sally forth and once again say I agree with the concept that once you become a public figure, you understand that you will become a target for charges which as a private citizen you would be able to successfully sue for. To give you one example with recent echoes, you could ask a public official how he became a millionaire and you could also suggest he had been not nearly a millionaire before coming to office. He could then deny or confirm anything but he or she could not sue you, unless it could be proved you acted “with malice aforethought”, which is defined as knowing what you were charging was untrue, or having “reckless disregard” for whether it was true or not.

This absolves not only the leveller of the charges, as long as there was some reasonableness to the allegations, even if false or flawed, and the middleman (the journalist/publisher) for further disseminating the charges.

As I understand it, however, our current Defamation law still allows a person who takes up public office to remain classed as a private individual in terms of his personal life, and therefore there is no buffer of protection for either other politicians or the media to carry anything about that person which would be actionable by an individual not holding public office. THe reason is simple: In this line of argument, a public official’s motives, thinking, private business and so forth may all affect how he does his or her public job and are therefore par for the course in terms of public scrutiny, save only for the malice clause.

And therein lies many of the problems. In small societies such as those in the Caribbean, ones' personal and public life overlap so much more than in larger countries. Look for example at Jamaica, where former Junior Minister Kern Spencer stands accused of allegedly manipulating a government project to distribute free lightbulbs from the Cuban government, in such a way that his child mother and child mother's mother benefited.

And Caribbean politicians know it is so. And they like it so - make no mistake. Which is why adjustments to defamation acts have been mere twiddling and not the dramatic changes needed to give the media freedom with which to investigate and report.Meanwhile, they can say what the hell they like under the auspices of Parliamentary privilege - knowing full well that all parliamentary debates are broadcast.

But Hoyos puts it better.

In other words (mine), having to get the criticism 100% right would set the bar too high and thus make a mockery of the idea of being able to criticise your public servants, the court ruled (my layman, and possibly mangled, summary, please note).

Later, other cases extended this concept of public officials being less immune to public criticism and charges of wrong-doing than private individuals to people who live private lives but inject themselves into a particular debate that they feel strongly about. In essence, they become treatable as public figures in matters concerning the issue to which they have embroiled themselves and must take the heat as well.

All of the above does NOT pertain to Barbados, and that is why we must tread so gingerly in our reporting.The irony has always been, of course, that the politicians who keep the law restraining us from doing all this harm to public officials wound tightly around our journalistic necks, can themselves level any charge they want against anyone, public officer or private official, in Parliament, and we in the press can go right ahead and report it, no matter how untrue it may be, as long as we do so accurately.

Congrats Rihanna! :)

2008-02-11T00:14:00.000-04:00

I'm real sleepy right about now so I will make this quick. Just want to say CONGRATULATIONS TO BAJAN SUPERSTAR RIHANNA on her Grammy wins! I for one am unabashedly and unreservedly proud of all Rihanna has achieved. Her success has already opened the doors for other Barbadian musicians such as Shontelle (wrote songs for Rihanna and is now with same management team which got her record deal) Dwane Husbands (did a duet with her for her 2nd album) and Livvi Franc (Jive has signed her, apparently hoping to make her the next Rihanna) and turned the eyes of the global music industry to Barbados.

So when people are quick to bash this young girl and say what has she done - there it is. Her success augurs well for other artistes in Barbados and she never forgets to shout out home - as she did tonight during her acceptance speech! And I cheered.

Fire hits Camden Market

2008-02-09T22:22:00.000-04:00

Photo source: Eric Braun/AP

Reports are that Camden Market in London, has gone up in flames tonight and large parts or even most of it may be destroyed.

I'm absolutely dismayed because Camden was my absolute favourite place to visit or just be in London - both when I was a visitor and during the time I lived there. I first came across it on my first visit to London - it was listed there in the guidebook that I picked up at the airport, under 'markets'.

The brief description could never do justice to the amazing, fascinating, earthy, funky cauldron of culture that Camden is. The crammed markets with all kinds of funky, irreverent or exotic clothing and tid bits, the strong punk culture and the sight of punks with 3-foot tall spiked pink hair and 6 inch black platform boots strolling the streets, the fantastic, frilly 50s prom style dresses sold in the stores, the bars lined with genuinely interesting, slightly rock and roll folk - it's fantastic. And the heart of it is Camden Market.

The first time I went, I actually took a British friend along with me who had been born and raised in London. Somehow she had never been to or even heard much of Camden but she loved it, exclaiming that she couldn't believe she had never been there all the years of her life.

When I spent a year in the UK doing my master's, I made sure to visit Camden every time I visited London. Even if I had little or no money to spend in the markets, just walking around in Camden was fun.

I actually got the chance to live in Camden for two weeks towards the end when I was interning in London. The house-share I had signed up for wasn't available yet so I ended up bunking with a friend of a friend who was staying with some other friends. The first month or so of my stay in London was traumatic, bouncing around from house to house, but my stay in Camden was great, even though I was skint. It was such a vibrant place that even walking up the road to the tube station to go to work on Mondays was a great experience.

I also always thought that it was great how the British tourist authorites proudly promoted their open-air, slightly unruly, vibrant markets as tourist attractions, rather than as some embarassment to be hidden away, the way we treat our vendors and markets in the Caribbean.

The success of that strategy is evident in the fact I can't imagine Camden with the market gone. It just won't be the same. :(

Why I support Obama

2008-02-06T09:21:00.000-04:00

It's the day after Super Tuesday...And YES, WE STILL CAN!

Barack Obama leads Hilary Clinton by 13 states to her 8 (New Mexico's results are still coming in and are too close to call). (Check the results here at the CNN election center). She leads in the delegate count though, mostly bolstered by her super-delegate count (the delegates who are high-ranking current or former party officials who do not have to be tied in by the primary or caucus results) - which is really attributable to the time she has been around the Democratic party and the pull she has as Clinton Pt.II. Barack as an up and comer, would naturally be at a disadvantage in this respect because Hilary is not just part of the Establishment, she is the Establishment.

Which is why his claim that ordinary people will be the ones to shape this election, is so compelling. It's not just a bit of political frippery. Obama will need the support of the ordinary rank and file to defeat the established interests and their quid pro quo.

On to another point.

Over the last few days, I have been questioning myself - why is it that I support Barack Obama so fervently? After all, I am from the Caribbean. The US elections don't have much to do with me, at least not in a direct way.

So I have had to examine - why am I so invested in and passionate about Obama winning?

The first and most obvious reason would be that he is black and so am I. That is definitely what drew me to him initially - that tiny, flickering hope that whispered maybe a black man could actually attain leadership of the most powerful and influential country in the world. I started with doubt - and with fear. As time went on and as Michelle Obama spoke most eloquently to those fears, I started to believe.

Though Obama being half-Kenyan, does not have the same background and history of slavery as most of the black people in the Western Hemisphere, the fact that he is black and treated as such and has still risen to where he is, is powerful. The fact still remains that wherever black people are in the Western Hemisphere, we are still at a disadvantage.

Don't roll your eyes - I am well-educated, middle class and relatively comfortable - far be it from me to play the victim. I am not saying it garner pity, I am saying it because it is so. The fact is even in the places where we are majorities (like in the Caribbean) and have political and social power (again like in the Caribbean) there is still the disadvantage of wealth distribution. Me and my cousins are the first generation of my family to be born middle class, to go to university,to have all the options before us, to have nothing denied to us. This is not the same situation with whites - they have had options before them for a very long time and still have the benefit of inherited wealth and jobs set aside for them in family-and-friend run businesses.

I am not bitter. This is how it is, but as my grandfather used to say 'it won't always be so.' He knew that was true - he did not have the simple dignity of the right to vote until he was 40 and already a husband and father of 6 children but he lived to see it become so.

Anyhow I say all that to say this - it will be a glorious day for black people in the West to be able to look at Obama and know that really, truly there is nothing we cannot do or achieve. It will go a long way to easing that cynical, resigned self-doubt that niggles at black people and makes us check ourselves and our ambitions before we even start.

That is the first reason that drew me to Obama. When I think about Hilary Clinton getting the US presidency, I am excited, joke about the idea of getting Bill back in the White House, pleased and proud at the thought of a woman being US president and so on. But when I think about Barack winning, I want to cry, the emotion is so great.

Now! To my other reasons. While the shared factor of race is what drew me to Obama's candidacy, the more I learn about Obama, the more I like him. I like that he is not willing to go along just to get along. When conventional wisdom in the US in 2003 screamed for the war in Iraq, Barack had the conviction to point out that it was a dumb war and he was opposed to dumb wars. As someone who participated in global protests (though to little avail eh?) against the war and as someone dismayed at the way the UK and the US to a lesser extent have been trying entice young Caribbean men to come fight their war (including people I know personally), this means a lot to me. The Iraq war is a terrible, misguided, poorly managed war. It has fanned the flames of Islamic militancy and made the world a more nervy, edgy and unpleasant place to live. Especially when I was living in the UK two years ago, it was like this cobweb of fear was hanging over everything.

I am and have always been disappointed that Hilary Clinton just went along with the conventional wisdom on the Iraq war. It was almost like she had to prove she could be just as ignorant and hawkish as the Republicans. I do not buy her argument then that if she knew now what she knew then, she would not have supported it. Lots of us around the world knew then that it was a bad idea. We knew they should have let Hans Blix finish his job. We knew the US should have waited on UN approval to go to war and that the action was high-handed and arrogant and would damage US relations and image in the world.

Which brings me to my third reason for supporting Obama. Despite all that is said (by myself included) against Americans it is not an evil country. No more evil than any other at least. However George Bush has done so much harm to the US image in the world it is incredible. Every time I see him with his squinty-eyed self on tv, I want to reach through the set and club him. He is a small-minded, parochial moron. How could someone aspire to be a world leader (and American presidents have to be world leaders - it is hard to keep to yourself when you have the third-largest population in the world) and not even have travelled outside of the US? Especially when you are rich as hell? It shows a profound and shocking lack of interest and respect for the rest of the world. And it has been exemplified by Bush's ridiculous, sulky 'if you don't do what we say, we're not talking to you', stick-fingers-in-ears approach to foreign policy.

I am convinced Obama will be different. He has to be. Just by the very fact of being born of an American mother and Kenyan father in Hawaii and living part of his childhood in Indonesia, he already has a grasp and empathy for different cultures and world views. He knows and understands that there are other people in the world and you have to try and get on with them. Which is why I never understood when people ridiculed him for saying he would meet with America's enemies. It is only in this Bushian state that the US is in now, that people would consider that a ludicrous idea. When you are the most powerful country on earth, you have to engage with others. When the US has engaged with other countries it has been better for the world. For pity's sake, the US made common ground with Stalin so as t end WWII. You don't have to like people to engage with them! Isolationism and unilateralism is doom.

I also support Obama because I want the Republicans to lose. With a passion. And I do not think Hilary Clinton can do that. As divided and dispirited as the Republicans are right now, they will rally around the thought of defeating Hilary Clinton. You read it all the time. Hilary does not deserve it, but Republicans have a visceral dislike of her that will cost her in the election and may cost the Democrats the election. It will be unforgiveable if Hilary-hate allows the Republicans back in for a third time in a row.

On the flip side, I am excited by Obama's ability to rally people from both sides around him (not against him) and to overcome partisanship.

I also support Obama because of judgement. Now people make a big deal about Hilary Clinton's so-called 35 years of experience. As a young feminist (no, I do think it is a dirty word - it is what I am and have always been), I cringe when I hear Hilary using this line and then unashamedly riding her husband's accomplishments like a race horse. Take the debate the other night against Obama, when someone asked her how can she be an agent of change when Bushes or Clintons have been in and around the White House for about 30 years (remember, Daddy Bush was Reagan's VP so these two dynasties have been around since 1980). She said that she wanted to be assessed on her own merits - I liked that, I nodded approvingly since everyone knows she's smarter than Bill anyway. She spoke of how proud she was of what her husband had done - and then in the next few sentences went on to list and ride all of his accomplishments, talking up how good it was in the 90s and so on. It was an amazing act of doublespeak. If I had not seen it for myself, I would not have believed it.

Call me an idealistic young feminist, but I want a female leader whose accomplishments are her own and who is not riding her husband's coat-tails to score points. It's humiliating to see Hilary do that - as if we can't do anything without a man. She is still defining herself by her association with a powerful man.

Anyway, I digress from my point about judgement. People talk up lack of experience as a demerit against Obama. May I remind people that George Bush also had 'experience' when he came into the White House? Does anyone remember that he was Governor of Texas - and apparently a quite good and very popular one, for 6 years? Not only that, like Hilary Clinton he could claim 'experience' by virtue of being around the machinations of power for a long time - his daddy was the president for goodness sake! Like Clinton has, he inherited his advisers and strategists. He had an even sounder political pedigree than Clinton in that his brother was also a governor - a very political family, with lots of experience floating around. He dealt with education reform, health care, crime reform and thorny immigration issues (Texas, remember?) before he became president.

George Bush's failing was not lack of experience. It was poor judgement.

So Obama's call that the US needs someone 'who is right on Day One' is entirely valid. Less than a year after taking office, Bush had to deal with 9/11. It would have been difficult for anyone. But a terrible situation has been compounded so many times over by the fact that Bush has dreadful judgement.

The fact that Obama was clear-eyed enough to see that the Iraq war was a terrible mistake when none of the other candidates in the race on either side were able or courageous enough to see and say that, tells me a lot about his judgement.

A question for Bajan entertainment promoters

2008-02-01T15:20:00.000-04:00

So you know how one innocuous thought or comment leads to another and another?

Well I won't bore you with the whole train of thought but today I was reading a review of Machel Montano's Alternative Concept show in Trinidad and it eventually led to me thinking - why haven't Barbadian promoters been able to franchise their shows the way the Trinis have?

Think about it - from the mid-90s to now, a flood of Trinidian hatched soca shows have become major franchises that are eagerly adopted around the Caribbean and its diaspora. Glow, Girl Power, Wet Fete, Alternative Concept, Insomnia (Ten-to-Ten)... shoot even Brian Lara has franchised his exclusive Carnival party and brought it to Bim.

I don't understand why Barbadian promoters have not been willing or able to do this. Despite the growth in the entertainment and cultural industry here and the burgeoning number of shows, concerts and festivals, we have not been able to take any of them overseas. This is even more puzzling when you consider that from the mid-90s til now, the trajectory of our entertainers' popularity has gone up and up. In the 90s and early part of this decade, Alison Hinds and Square One, Edwin Yearwood and Krosfyah and Rupee were some of the most popular artistes in the region. We had them right there, (relatively) easily accessible.

Yet it took promoters from Trinidad to harness their talent along with other soca stars in a concept that would lead to mega-shows that everyone then wanted to bring to their own country.

Which brings me to my other point - rather than create entertainment franchises, our own successful, capable and intelligent promoters just adopted those franchises already existant and created in Trinidad. Power x Four does Glow. Baje does Girl Power. FAS does Ten to Ten.

Why?

Of course this led to much grumbling (now somewhat muted or resigned) about the 'Trinidadian-isation of Crop-Over. To be honest, I'm not going to be among the complainers. I enjoy the shows - they have cool concepts and I have had a BALL at them over the years in different countries.

No, far from complain, I am going to say - why aren't we doing this ourselves? Why bitch about 'bringing in all the Trini shows' rather than come up with some concepts ourselves that others want?

Surely Trini promoters cannot have the market cornered on ingenious and creative concepts nor the hustle needed to make them happen. These same promoters in Barbados who put on the Trini franchises also come up with good concepts and good shows. Not only that, they have popularity and brand recognition that goes past Barbados. Why aren't they spreading their wings?

'Canadian' is the new 'n-word'.

2008-01-30T15:44:00.001-04:00

I find this darkly hilarious on soooo many levels.

From several blogs, including Foreign Policy, Racialicious and Jack and Jill Politics, this gem on the new codeword racists are using instead of nigger.

Canadian.

Earlier this month, an e-mail that had been circulating since 2003, written by a Houston assistant district attorney Mike Trent, resurfaced. The e-mail was short, only about 100 words, and was sent to the entire office. It started out by praising a junior prosecutor for a job well done. Then the message continued:

He overcame a subversively good defense by Matt Hennessey that had some Canadians on the jury feeling sorry for the defendant and forced them to do the right thing."

If you're wondering why Canadians were on a Texas jury when only U.S. citizens are allowed to serve, well, there weren't any. Other members of the D.A.'s office who got the memo were wondering the same thing themselves. They looked at an online database of racial slurs and found that "Canadian" was a term used to mask more openly racist terms. Trent claims that he was unaware of the meaning, overheard someone saying that there were Canadians on the jury, took that literally, and just repeated it in his e-mail.

Oh my, where do I start? First thing I guess that would make me a 'Canadian Canadian' since I'm (gasp!) both black and born in T-dot.

Second, I noticed in the comments sections that many people said the term is quite common among restaurant waiters who use it to insult black diners, often right next to them. Ooooohhh the hilarity of a waiter trying to belittle me is fantastic!

Third, the hilarity of Americans using it full stop, is just CRAZY. Have these people been outside of the nest? Do they have any idea of how the rest of the world views Americans or which nationality would be considered more of a slur outside of the USA? No? Then let me illustrate.

Three years ago I was on vacation in London and using my traveller's cheques. Hence I needed ID. I told the cashier at M&S that I would be using my Canadian passport and he chuckled a bit, then shared this gem - that he was seeing tons of American tourists who were trying to pass themselves off as Canadians because it was so embarassing to be an American at that point (this was about the time that dissatisfaction and disaffection with the war in Iraq etc started to peak). Problem came when the poor Americans had to present ID or even when they whipped out their American money - gave it straight away.

Canadians - the nationality, not the race - have no such problems.

The Guyana massacre and international media double-standards

2008-01-30T10:02:00.000-04:00

What is the point of these killings?

The headline of the letter in the Stabroek News summed up what people around the Caribbean have been thinking since the horrific night-time slaughter of 11 people (including 5 children) in Lusignan, Guyana.

Why? It makes no sense. It just boggles the mind in its horrific nature. It doesn't seem like a targeted gangland killing, nor a tit-for-tat of rival communities - this is just a little farming community on the East coast of Guyana. It was just - wanton, senseless murder.

Not even in Jamaica, which has seen its share of savagery, have I heard of something so brutal - they murdered children who were 4 years old, 10 years old, 11 and 12.

I read an article in today's Nation (adapted from Stabroek News) that just broke my heart. Rajkumar Harrilall went to Trinidad just one month ago, like many Guyanese seeking to do better and be able to send money for his family. He got a call early Saturday morning urging him to return home on the earliest possible flight. While at the airport, he got the call that his wife and two children were murdered.

"It is like I am a stranger. I have no-one and my life is at a standstill," said Harrilall.

What has me about this is the lack of attention being paid by the international media. If a crazed gunman had killed even half that number in a mall/school/church in the United States or some European country, it would be huge news, endlessly reported on.

A gang of at least two dozen descends upon an innocent community and wreaks terror, murders 11 people and wounds many more as they lay in their beds but if you do a google search for Lusignan, you mostly see stories from Stabroek and other Caribbean news agencies and newspapers. There are a few mentions from newswires but nothing like the blanket coverage there would still be if this happened elsewhere.

Are 11 brown and black lives worth such scant attention?

ICC's final capitulation to the BCCI bullies

2008-01-29T10:07:00.000-04:00

Not that I didn't figure it would happen but... Indian spinner Harbhajan Singh has been cleared of 'racial abuse' during the 2nd Aus v. India match, though he has pleaded guilty to the lower level charge of using abusive language.

Sooo... after claiming he did not say anything offensive, now he's admitting that he did say something offensive but the ICC's ball-less drones have decided in their infinite wisdom that it was not 'racist'?

So, what exactly did Harbhajan say? Did he actually call Symmonds a monkey, after being told by Symmonds himself back in October that he considered it offensive and racist?

Because he is acknowledging that he called Symmonds something.

As Guardian blogger Andy Bull commented:

Dirt is being swept underneath the carpet here, and the bulge is starting to show.

Disgusting.

What on earth is going on in Kenya?

2008-01-29T09:45:00.001-04:00

(photo credit: Ben Curtis,AP)

This thought has been running through the minds of many around the world for the last month as we look on in horror at what is happening in Kenya.

Would I sound naive if I said I was truly shocked? Others who are unremittingly cynical about every country on the African continent may not be, but I really thought Kenya was different.

Compared to many (most?) other African countries...heck not even by those standards of comparison, just on its own - Kenya always seemed so...normal. Rather corrupt yes but democracy worked there, the diverse people seemed to be living together in peace and it functioned.

All of this ethnic bitterness that seems to have been brought to the surface by the (extremely dodgy) results of the election is a shock to me. It's like 'oh no...not this again...and not in Kenya'.

What is scaring me is that it does not seem to be stopping. The 'president' Mwai Kibaki is refusing to back down from his stance that he was duly elected even though this is clearly the most farcical of claims. The 'Opposition leader' Raila Odinga is not doing anything to calm his supporters, but instead is whipping it up through his rhetoric.

They are both acting like... well like the stereotype of an 'African strongman'. I groan in dismay at it all.

And I keep thinking that it must stop soon. I mean, this is Kenya after all - they're not like that.

Right?

State of Mississippi steals Katrina survivors' money

2008-01-25T10:58:00.000-04:00

Republican Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour with a 'friend' Photo from msnbc.com)

As soon as I began reading this story about the US state of Mississippi 'diverting' $600M of federal grants intended to replace housing lost to Hurricane Katrina, it had the stench of 'Republican' all over it.

Sure enough, the governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour is a Republican - a former lobbyist turned politician.

This is... just wrong on so many levels. It's wrong on this level:

While thousands of Mississippians who lost their homes to Hurricane Katrina remain in FEMA trailers, the state intends to spend $600 million in federal grants originally earmarked for housing on a major expansion of the state-owned port — a project that could eventually include casino and resort facilities.

It's wrong on this level too:

Mississippi, with the highest poverty rate of any state by several measures, already had won HUD waivers of rules that require the funds to benefit low- and moderate-income residents.

It is also wrong on this level:

It wasn't until early December, six months after the update was adopted by the port authority, that the state development authority sought a waiver from HUD to divert $600 million of the housing grant money to the port — more than double the net dollar damage reportedly sustained by the port from Katrina.

It's wrong because of this too:

Barbour maintains that some of the federal grant money always was intended for port expansion. But the state development authority did not provide any documentation to support that. And despite repeated requests, agency spokeswoman Melissa Medley did not respond to other msnbc.com questions about the fund diversion and housing programs.
Barbour’s current position that part of the housing grant pool was always intended for the port is at odds with his March 2006 testimony before a Senate committee, in which he emphasized that the CDBG money was mostly committed to housing and sought new funds for the port.

But most of all it is wrong because of this:

In its “Mississippi CDBG Recovery Fund Report Card,” the Steps Coalition reported that as of mid-January more than 13,000 Mississippi families — or a total of 35,129 people — remained in FEMA housing, nearly 90 percent of them in small travel trailers and most of them ineligible for the CDBG-funded grants.

Another 15,500 households — more than 40,000 people — have open case files with long-term recovery organizations and need assistance to repair their homes and replace belongings, according to the report. Replacement of low-income rental housing also is moving very slowly, and government programs and incentives will restore fewer than half of the 28,514 units damaged and destroyed by Katrina, according to the coalition.

Basically, this disgusting situation was summed up pretty efficiently here:

“There’s no other explanation except that the state doesn’t think the lower income storm victims are as important a priority as the port," said Reilly Morse, an attorney with the Mississippi Center for Justice, part of the coalition.

But let us cut to the chase, shall we? The chase that was brutally exposed and opened by the inefficiency and indifference of US government officials in 2005 when Katrina struck.

According to Wikipedia's entry on Mississipi:
Mississippi has the highest Black population of any U.S. state. It currently stands at about 37% of the population.

Based on economic and demographic trends in the U.S. I think we can safely surmise who the majority of these 'low-income' Katrina victimes are.

Clearly, it's not just George Bush that doesn't care about black people.

Last thoughts - the rise of the Waterfordians

2008-01-25T09:31:00.000-04:00

I actually remembered what was supposed to be third political 'odd and end' about our just concluded silly season. It is this:

With David Thompson now Prime Minister, Combermerians are going to be even more intolerable now than ever before - though I could scarecely have imagined such to be possible. The Waterfordians are already super-patriotic, crazed nutcases about their school - even those who do not ordinarily subscribe to 'group think' or loyalty to any particular cause, turn dotish at the thought of that school (yes, I mean you sungoddess!). Being able to claim a Prime Minister now is going to make them too smug for words.

Already it has begun. In last week's Weekend Nation, staunch BLP hack Ezra Alleyne was able to find some joy in his party's 20-10 drubbing by waxing poetic about Waterford:

My first order of business this morning is to congratulate Mr David Thompson on becoming our first Combermerian to ascend "up and on" to the high office of Prime Minister of this country.

I note too that my good friend Branford Taitt who managed the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) campaign, is also a former Combermerian. He, too, gets my warmest congratulations, since the old school tie remains an inseparable bond between Combermerians and transcends the political divide.

*puke*

RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008

2008-01-22T22:54:00.000-04:00

I know this may seem like an unusual post for me but ... I sure loved this white boy.
From way back in the day when he was a little-known actor in the Australian show 'Sweat' and it gave me pleasure to see the rest of the world recognise his talent.

Rest in peace Heath.

Odds, ends and leftovers

2008-01-22T13:55:00.000-04:00

Just a few observations from the silly season which has all but wound down now, with the swearing in of Cabinet over the lovely long weekend.

In a two-page spread interview in the Sunday Sun, PM Thompson's wife Mara noted:

Nor does he want me to think that now that he is Prime Minister I will get less attention. I noticed this morning (Friday) that he left without telling me good-bye and he actually made the policeman who was driving him turn around and come back to the house so he could give me a kiss. I was touched.

Bless! So am I. My boyfriend (who is an even bigger romantic than our PM apparently is) opined that it made Thompson look soft. As a woman, I beg to differ - he went up two points in my estimation.

---------------------

Colin Spencer apparently wants folks in St. George North to realise that even though Opposition MP Gline Clarke is the MP, he's the boss. In an interview Wednesday night, after being defeated by some 745 votes, Spencer proclaimed:

I am seeing myself as of this moment as the parliamentary representative for this constituency. Whatever plans Mr. Clarke has, unless he plans to finance them himself, whatever is done in the constituency from here on I am going to be a part of and the Democratic Labour Party has to get the credit for it.

Ooook then.

-------------------

I had another one which I can't remember now so I will close with an alternative.

Didn't Mia Mottley look jolly as she became the new Opposition Leader? I mean, considering her party lost and all. But clearly she has won in a way.

New Cabinet, New Opposition Leader...

2008-01-20T18:13:00.000-04:00

Prime Minister David Thompson named his new Cabinet last night and they were sworn in today at an ecumenical service at Kensington Oval (maybe the 3rd official event held at Kensington since the World Cup ended 9 months ago, but that is a whole 'nother post).

The Cabinet is as follows:

David Thompson - Prime Minister, Finance, Economic Affairs and Development, Labour, Civil Service and Energy

Freundel Stuart - Attorney General, Home Affairs

Chris Sinckler - Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade, International Business

Donville Inniss - Minister of State in the aforementioned Ministry

Dr. David Estwick - Health, National Insurance, Social Security

Denis Lowe - Social Care, Constituency Empowerment, Urban Development

Patrick Todd - Minister of State in the aforementioned ministry

John Boyce - Transport, Works, International Transport

Steve Blackett - Community Development and Culture

Michael Lashley - Housing and Lands

George Hutson - Trade, Industry & Commerce

Richard Sealy - Tourism

Ronald Jones - Education, Human Resource Development

Dr. Esther Byer-Suckoo - Family, Youth Affairs, Sports & the Environment

Haynesley Benn (Senator) - Agriculture, Rural Development

Maxine McClean (Senator) - Leader of Government Business in Senate, Minister in Prime Minister's Office

Arni Walters (Senator) - Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office

Darcy Boyce (Senator) - Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office

Stuff I found interesting:
- Lots of Ministers in the Prime Minister's office - three! I guess with such a hefty portfolio for himself, it was necessary to bring in that expertise. Time will tell who has been assigned to oversee which of the sectors.

- No Cabinet pick for Denis Kellman, who is one of the most experienced Dems in Parliament, in terms of terms elected - 4 in a row now. Is this a slight?

- Only two female Ministers, coming after Thompson said he wanted a stronger role for women in his new government and after an administration where women played dominant roles. True, Esther Byer was the only one of their 'four queens' to win her seat but I thought that Whittaker and Sandiford-Garner in particular, were demonstrably competent and would have at least been named Senators and Ministers.

- the 'Constituency Empowerment' ministry - not quite sure what that is, but I figure it has to do with the Dems' stated committment to setting up constituency councils to deal with the nitty-gritty everyday issues like streetlights and bad roads and debushing lots that often take so long to get resolved because it has to go all the way to whichever Ministry before it is resolved.

- the 'Human Resource Development' ministry - I have no clue what that is, to be honest. It really sounds like a sub-section of Labour and the Civil Service portfolio but it remains to be seen.

The Experience Thing & the Guessing Game pt II

2008-01-16T19:51:00.000-04:00

Last night the two Peters (CBC reporter Peter Thorne and pollster Peter Wickham) were discussing the possible formation of the new Cabinet. Thorne raised the much-discussed issue of the relative inexperience of the DLP team and queried whether the DLP might bring back some of their 'old hands' as Senators and maybe Ministers.

Wickham dismissed it and said that the BLP was also inexperienced when they came into office. While this is true to some extent, they were certainly nowhere as inexperienced as the current Dem team which only has one member - Thompson who has even been in Government before. This is understandable as they have been out of power for 14 years before Tuesday so many of their old hands have bowed out of politics. The Bees on the other hand came into office in 94 only 8 years out of government (86-94)so they still had several people who had experience of being in government before and had actually been Ministers - Billie Miller, Louis Tull, Johnny Cheltenham, Bree St. John and Henry Forde.

Honestly I don't think it's any great shame for the Dems to have an inexperienced team - it's kind of like the Barack Obama/ Hilary Clinton argument that is going on now in the States - experience vs. change (though I must note that Hilary Clinton's much vaunted '35 years of experience' argument rings rather hollow when you take into account the fact that only 7 of those years have been as an elected official - the rest was as a lawyer and first lady - and if we are counting that as experience, why not vote for Laura Bush?).

But back to my point - the people showed that it is not just experience they wanted but a change. The feeling was that those with the experience had become smug.

Still, I quite agree with Thorne's suggestion that the Dems might look at bringing back some of their old hands - the party does have people with ministerial experience who though old, are still rather spranxious, so use them. Brandford Taitt just ran a whole election campaign - he must have some fuel left in his tank. They would be well advised to bring in some of those ppl if not as Ministers, as Special Advisors or something like that, so they can guide the new young ministers.

As to the new young ministers - I gave a few of my guesses for various cabinet posts the other day and have been discussing it constantly with others - it's all anyone is talking about. I take back my call of Patrick Todd as Minister of Education. He's a nice man, but I had forgotten that both Ronald Jones and marginally defeated candidate Undene Whittaker have both been heads of the Barbados Union of Teachers so presumably they both know education issues tall. It would be hard to beat that for experience so Todd might have to hold on to a smaller ministry or maybe be Minister of State.

As to Minister of Tourism. I see in today's paper that Wickham and David Ellis were discussing it on Starcom yesterday and both Donville Inniss and Austin Husbands have been suggested. I actually think Inniss might be a better fit for what used to be Industry and International Business, since that is actually his area of work right now. Austin Husbands actually works in tourism and has been on the BTA in one of its former incarnations so he might be a better bet.

I think Irene Sandiford-Garner could be the Minister of Culture - she and her husband actually run an entertainment management company and he was into the arts (either dance or theatre) in his younger days. Furthermore, Thompson has stated he wants to have a strong female presence and he needs to add weight to Irene and Undene because they both nearly brought it home for the Dems this time in tough constituencies and deserve to be rewarded for such. I'm not sure what they would add to Culture for Irene though- maybe put CBC under her mandate as well...?

Chris Sinckler I think will be Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade since again that is his present career path and I think Richard Sealy might get transport and works, as an engineer.

But all shall be revealed on Monday.

DLP - wha gine happen?

2008-01-16T09:41:00.001-04:00

Time to look ahead now and try to make some predictions.

Last night a friend from Jamaica queried of me what does the DLP's victory mean for CSME and the Caribbean integration movement?

To be honest, shamefully - I did not know. I know the Bees have been very pro-CSME but I have not heard the Dems expressing anti-CSME sentiments and Barrow was instrumental in forming CARICOM. And like me, Thompson is clearly about putting Caribbean integration into practice (wink, wink) as his wife is Lucian. Though that may not be a clear indication of pro-Caribbean unity sentiments, I would like to think it is so and I hope that continues because I am and have always been firmly pro Caribbean integration. (I'm trying to download the manifesto again to check their CSME proposals but the DLP site seems to be mad busy).

On other issues - I skimmed the manifesto the night before elections - I have not read everything as I just looked at the areas most interesting to me - land use, enterprise and culture.

I found the land use proposals very encouraging. If what is said in the manifesto is carried out, they will definitely take a firmer hand with land policy than the Bees have. And land prices may get more reasonable again as governmental controls may cut down on some of the wild speculation that have driven up land prices so much in the last decade - basically quadrupling the cost of land in many places since the late 90s.

I was especially interested by that proposal for 500 lots of $5 a square foot land in the first months of the administration - run, don't walk to your credit union or bank and secure your loan NOW!

I also thought the suggestions for zoning the land to determine who can buy in certain areas (locals and inland tourism in the East, agriculture in the center, tourism presumably stays on the west) and who can't, to be interesting. Though I must wonder - how will this apply to the returning nationals who are driving a lot of the demand and a lot of the price hikes in many areas? Will they be counted as foreign buyers or as locals? And will they just ease around the zoning rules using family they have here?

On culture - I was rather disappointed, particularly because I have studied and am interested in the cultural industries. There was just a paragraph that spoke about culture in general, sociological terms and decried the 'bashment culture' and urged us to get back to wholesome values. All well and good but what about the industry of culture? Will they continue the initiatives pushed by the Bees who seemed very invested in developing the cultural industries (and who had lots of specific proposals in this regard in their manifesto) or do they not consider that a growth area, (perhaps in light of rampant worldwide intellectual piracy?) What will become of the mooted Festival and Events Bureau? Will the NCF indeed be restructured? What will become of the proposals to revamp the Empire Theatre and the Daphne Joseph Hackett theatre? It remains to be seen.

Now to the most fun part of predictions - who will get what in the new Cabinet? Freundel Stuart has already been named Attorney General which is smart, especially considering he challenged Thompson for power in recent years - keep your friend close and all that...

Other guesses - James Paul as Minister of Agriculture and other assorted green stuff like Energy and the Environment. Patrick Todd as Minister of Education, Michael Lashley may well switch from Shadow to actual Minister of Housing (I thought he was the DLP's best shadow minister when they were in Opposition - he actually brought up issues). As for Minister of Tourism - I'm guessing either someone young and promising like Esther Byer-Suckoo or Stephen Lashley or they will appoint a non-sitting Minister. Chris Sinckler should definitely get something big and prominent as should Denis Kellman (for the sake of keeping him placated). The rest, we shall have to wait and see.

'To the manor born' and 'lights out'...

2008-01-16T09:29:00.001-04:00

I decided to split my analysis into several posts for the sake of not making it too long and boring. :)

So what does this mean for the two political leaders? I was planning to blog about this before the elections but there were so many other things to write about. No matter what happened, it was definitely going to be 'lights out' for someone. Their political futures hinged on this election.

For David Thompson, I guess it shows that he really is 'to the manor born'. I will confess, I have always been slightly puzzled by the insistence of many die-hard Dems that Thompson was 'meant' to be Prime Minister. I always felt there was something elitist in it, similar to sentiments on the Bees' side about Mia Mottley being meant for power. This concept we have in the Caribbean that certain people (usually upper middle class, went to the right schools, of the 'right' family and red or brown skinned - e.g. Golding, Gonsalves, Anthony of recent vintage, Michael Manley, Tom Adams of older vintage) bothers me a bit.

Anyhow, he has certainly had to work hard (even harder than expected in the end - 14 years out of power remember) for his destiny (as did Bruce Golding, another 'to the manor born' I have had ambivalent feelings about) so I would never grudge the man his victory. So this is the fulfillment of a long-held ambition, for while it seems like Thompson has been around forever (he has been an MP since I moved to Barbados and I was only 4 then) he is actually only in his very early 50s (or is it younger? I think I read 46 years old the other day but that seems too young.

For the Opposition BLP now and particularly former PM Arthur - what of them? I found it most fascinating last night that as Arthur gave his concession speech with deputy leader Mia Mottley vigilant right beside him, he would not indicate whether he would be the Opposition leader.

There have been signs and rumours of tension in the BLP camp in recent times, with things looking like Mia Mottley was being shunted aside. Clearly, since the Arthurian leadership aura did not extend to the rest of the party to give them victory this time (as it did in 2003 and DEFINITELY in 1999) he is no longer useful to the party. Now that they no longer have to be deferential I think those in her camp will now say it is her time. The only question to my mind is - will it be public, protracted and bitter like the Dems' leadership fight was? Or will it be smooth so as to maintain the semblance of unity? Judging from the tone of Arthur's comments, I think he is ready to step aside quietly. He is already 58 - going on 59 and it would be impractical for him to continue any further. If he led the BLP into the next election, he would be 63 or 64! Since Independence, no political leader in Barbados in their 60s has ever led their party into power and lived long enough to savour the victory. Barrow was 67 when he led the Dems to victory in 87 but he did not last long the last time. Running Barbados is stressful, yes! We like our politicians young enough to keep up.

It will also force the party to restructure. I had read a rather compelling (if obviously partisan) analysis of the Trinidad elections a few months ago by Hartley Henry and how Manning took the chance there of splitting his party by tossing out a number of incumbent politicians to get a whole new party. Henry had argued then that Arthur should have tossed out some of the dross in his party and refreshed it (though Henry would clearly have had a conniption fit if this had actually worked for the Bees). There were certain candidates who were weak for the Bees and the writing was on the wall for them long time. So it is time to look for newer, better and perhaps younger.

As to the actual Opposition itself now - while it is strong enough in numbers, I am not too certain of the substance of it. Five of the presumed ten were essentially back-benchers in the last administration. They lost nine MPs who had been ministers. It is interesting that those thought most capable are those that lost most heavily. The thing is, many of these Opposition MPs are not folks who have been used to speaking up much, especially in recent times. Cynthia is a good, grassroots woman but not a stellar debater, Hammie La has been very quiet in recent times since he was removed from his Ministerial post, as has Ronald Toppin and George Payne for the last many years. Duguid was a back bencher. Still, the onus cannot be left on only the other four immediate past ministers to speak up and bring the fight. It will be interesting to see how that is dealt with.

The Morning After... was it good for you?

2008-01-16T08:35:00.000-04:00

So it is January 16 and we have a new government. PM-elect David Thompson kind of upset my apple cart by calling the expected celebratory public holiday for Friday instead of today so sleep is here bursting my tail. I'm at work, armed with a coffee so strong it could pump iron. But we do get a long weekend...

So, of the 29 seats called, 20 have gone with the Dems and there is a recount set for St. Andrew. It seems that may go with the Bees as at the end of the first count, George Payne had 49 votes more than Irene Sandiford-Garner (who I had actually expected to win).

So on to my analysis which might be slightly fuzzy because of sleep-deprivation.

It looks like the House will be 20-10 which is much better in my view. I can definitely be cool with that. An Opposition of 10 should be sufficiently large to mount a credible challenge to Government and keep them on their toes, but it is not so large that they can make it difficult for the ruling party to govern effectively and we do want our ruling party to be able to do their job.

In the end, it has been good for democracy. The prolonged weakness and dividedness of the DLP was not good for Barbados and the return to power of one of the Caribbean's oldest political parties is good and can only enliven them- and we do want at least two lively parties (well I do but I'm not partisan :)Particularly in light of Owen Arthur's disturbing comments shortly before the election that he never wanted to see the DLP hold the reins of power in Barbados again, this is heartening. Those comments were wrong-headed and slightly scary.

A Time of Change in the Caribbean

2008-01-16T00:19:00.000-04:00

Update #3

St. Philip South just called for Adriel Brathwaite of the DLP.
----------

Well it's all over bar the shouting right now - actually I just saw coverage from the Lodge School in St. John and plenty shouting going on there. :)

Barbados has joined the majority of our Caribbean neighbours who have voted in the last year and some in changing their administration. So the scorecard now is 4-1 - Barbados, Jamaica, Bahamas, St. Lucia changed and Trinidad stayed the same (thanks to the opposition?).

It looks like it will be 19-11 to the DLP, according to my boyfriend who is manning our official scorecard.(I'm taking down the raw data).

Seats are still being called officially.

St. James South just called for Donville Inniss of the DLP
St.Michael North West - Chris Sinckler - DLP
St. Michael South East- Hamilton Lashley - BLP
St. Michael West - Michael Carrington - DLP
Christ Church East Central - Ronald Jones - DLP
Christ Church West Central - Stephen Lashley - DLP
St. John - David Thompson (like duh - only by about 4000-odd votes)- DLP
St. Philip West - David Estwick - DLP
St. Michael East - Kenneth Best - DLP
St. James North - Rawle Eastmond - BLP
St. James Central - George Hutson - DLP
St. Lucy - Denis Kellman - DLP
St. Peter - Owen Arthur - BLP
St. Michael North East - Mia Mottley - BLP
St. Michael North - Ronald Toppin -BLP
Christ Church West - William Duguid BLP

So how many is that thus far?
DLP - 17
BLP - 7
Not called as yet but the likely results are:
St. Michael South (DLP)
Christ Church East (DLP)
St. Joseph (BLP- but narrowly - Dale Marshall is only ahead by 44 votes and a recount has been demanded)
St. George North (DLP)
St. Philip South (not sure about this one - I have only heard two boxes called thus far and it is close)
St. Andrew (DLP - but again I am not totally sure - George Payne won strongly in some boxes but Irene Sandiford-Garner is actually leading if you tally all the boxes called thus far).

(Live results here)

Hmmm...it is looking like you could actually call it a landslide. By my estimation, it could end up as 22-8 or maybe 21-9.

To be honest, I'm not thrilled about that. I have been heartened by these election results because I thought it was a good sign for democracy after having an enfeebled Opposition for so long. The fact that people trusted our choices enough to change from one party to the other was positive. But most of all, I was looking forward to having a robust Opposition to keep the government honest and for things to be more even again. A small Opposition is not good in my humble opinion.

Election Updates: The people are speaking...

2008-01-15T22:09:00.000-04:00

Update #2

Owen Arthur is giving his concession speech at Coleridge & Parry. Some excerpts...

"I accept the verdict of the people... I accept free and fair elections. I am honoured to have been Prime Minister since 1994 ... (On the desire for change)It is a natural instinct, a natural human instinct... I fully respect it. I thank the people of Barbados for the opportunity to have been Prime Ministrer of this country... Only a few people have had this honour... I leave this office with no rancour. It is a party that has given of its very best... Like I said in 84, I have come to serve... I am not going to anticipate the matter. Although i am in opposition I have a contribution to make.

(On the question of whether he will be Opposition Leader) I will discuss that with my colleagues before i make a judgement.

I would like to congratulate the Democratic Labour Party... There has not been the rancour that attends other elections... that elections have been carried out in a peaceful way is a credit to this country...

Update #1

Several seats have been officially called. Thus far:

City of Bridgetown - Patrick Todd- DLP
St. George South - Esther Byer-Suckoo-DLP
St. Thomas - Cynthia Forde
Christ Church East Central- Ronald Jones - DLP
St. Michael South Central - Richard Sealy - DLP
Christ Church South - John Boyce - DLP
St. Michael West Central - James Paul - DLP
St. Philip North - Michael Lashley - DLP
St. Michael Central - Steve Blackett - DLP
St. Michael East - Mia Mottley - BLP

--------------------------------------

So the election results are pouring in right now. Me and my boyfriend are mostly pinned to the tv watching the election coverage on CBC so this will be a quick blog - analysis later. :)

Thus far - the swing definitely seems to be going with the DLP thus far. DLP's main spin man, Hartley Henry (part of the CBC analysis panel) is positively purring with satisfaction.

... Have been trying to enter this blog for the last 45 mins or so but between friends overseas peppering me for results and results coming in fast and furious, I am struggling.

It looks like there may be some surprises in even some solid BLP seats - Liz Thompson is behind Donville Inniss right now in St. James South and Rawle Eastmond, George Payne and Gline Clarke all looking shaky.

... Still trying to write but the results coming in with a vengeance. Will have to give the summation when it finishes.

Look for the signs

2008-01-15T11:03:00.000-04:00

So I've been meaning to blog about this while. Since the elections have started and even before as things heated up, there has been a lot of talk from rabid and not so rabid partisans on both sides about the biases of the news media.

Now, I have my own personal opinions on which media houses (whether print, broadcast or online)are biased and which ones are not. That is not what I'm here to discuss.

What I've found too often is that the people making the accusations have no solid evidence to base it on and are often going on emotion rather than looking dispassionately or listening dispassionately at what is before them.

Having been trained in and worked in the media, I look at things with a less jaundiced eye. I also look for the particular elements which show me whether a media outlet is biased or not - the things that journalists are supposed to be keeping in mind as they write or voice their story.

So I've decided to share these with others so that when they make their case, they have something more than conspiracy theories to base it on. I will speak mostly about print since that is my forte.

Look for:

PLACEMENT

For the print media, the most important pages of a newspaper are the front, back, page 3 and page 5 - pretty much in that order though sometimes I think the back page and page 3 duke it out for importance. The front page is the most important for obvious reasons - you see it first! The back page is also pretty obvious - as an outside page, people tend to look at it second (this is also why a lot of publications the world over tend to use that page for their leading sports story - sports and crosswords tend to be the most popular sections of the paper).

Page 3 is known as the 'inside cover' and is usually either where outside page stories are continued or where second-most important stories are carried.

You may ask, well why not page 2? And why is page 5 more important than page 4? The reason is that in the west we read from left to right. Hence publications (books, mags, newspapers) are bound at the left and opened from the right - and that is where our eyes tend to fall first. I suppose in Arabic countries (where they read from right to left!) it may well be different.

So page 3 and page 5 as the first two right hand side pages are important. They are also good places to put ads.

So in looking for bias in placement you have to look at - how often is 'X' favoured over 'Y' or even 'Z' in placement? If X party is getting most of the stories on these four most important pages, then there may well be a bias.

With broadcast media, placement is important as well. The importance of a story is determined by how early on a particular story is dealt with and also whether it is announced as one of the 'headlines' at the beginning of the news broadcast.

BALANCE

One thing I was taught in my first semester at journalism school was that it is virtually impossible to be truly objective, that journalists can only strive for balance in reporting. The thinking is that you will generally form an opinion one way or the other on a story and while that opinion may be in your mind, it should not be reflected in your story because all sides must be told and then it should be left up to the reader/listener to decide.

Honestly, I tend to disagree on this to some extent. I think there are times when a journalist can be perfectly objective and not have an opinion on something. I say this because there are some things you just may not care about - for example, Kazakhstan or the sport of curling. I could be totally objective on those because I don't know or care enough to have an opinion either way.

Anyhow, back to balance. You should strive for balance and that is never more important than in the fervour of the political season. So if you report something that is said by X, you have to allow Y and even Z to respond. If a generic issue comes up, then X, Y and Z must all be allowed to ventilate their opinion on it.

What is also very important especially in the general two-party system that prevails in the Caribbean, is that minority parties are allowed to be part of the discourse too. Though the reality on the ground is that they may well be insignificant, they should not be ignored. That is bias in itself too, though I have not heard many people crying out about media bias in this election towards the People's Democratic Congress which is fielding two candidates. However, they were taken seriously and a full report on their manifesto came in at least one publication recently.

BALANCE II - THE LEAD

Balance has many elements. Within the story, the lead is the most important part - it draws people into reading/listening to the story in the first place, but it can also determine the tone of the piece. It is really the most difficult part of the story - and I used to agonise for sometimes up to an hour over how to craft the lead (my editor used to tell me write the story and then get back to the lead but I find that impossible).

The lead has to be many things. It has to be juicy enough to attract attention and so journos are encouraged to lead with the most newsworthy element of an event. What is juicy is not necessarily what came first, nor may it be the most pleasant aspect of an event. It is a news story, not a transcription or a composition. Hence the cruel old journalism adage "If it bleeds, it leads" because gore is always a good way to capture attention right at the start.

However in choosing the most newsworthy element of the story, journos often incur the wrath of the citizenry who accuse them of 'sensationalising' or of ignoring more pleasant or noble aspects of an event to focus on the dirtier and more attention-grabbing. This is often where accusations of bias come in but the vast majority of the time, it is not bias. It is trying to get yourself on the front page/headlines and sell papers. It is just business.

The lead also has to be concise though this is dependent on the particular medium. A hard news story lead should really not be more than 30 words. I'm not at all concise so I often found this difficult. I often resorted to using delayed leads - which is catchy (and often corny- journalists depend heavily on the corny) and short phrases which allude to the general story and then use the second and third lines to address the issue. So for example (not a real lead I wrote, just off the top of my head).

"Lord, we can't take it no more!" Striking nuns at the St.Caribbean of Lionesse nunnery were on the picket lines yesterday, protesting the decision of the Mother Superior to change their robes to a 'more modern' lilac.

See? Slightly corny and alludes to the general story. :)

BALANCE III - SOURCES

One of the cardinal rules of journalism is supposed to be 'no single-source stories'. I say 'supposed to' because this does not always happen - more on that later. A single-source story means that you have no balance from the other side and it is basically just an opinion, not news. It also looks bad because as a journalist, you have to allow the other side or sides to put forward their views as well. This can often be difficult if one side is accusing the other of something. The 'other side' may dodge you and take you right down to your deadline. So then you end up with 'repeated efforts to contact such-and-such proved futile.' People may think it is a conspiracy, but trust me it is the most difficult thing in journalism to get all the sources. I once spent a month chasing down a particular minister for a brief quote on a particular story. I finally reached the minister on their cell but they were 'busy' at that point in time. I eventually had to run it without the quote from the minister, but by then some of the steam had gone out of the story and it was relegated to some far, left-hand page. :(

It is even more difficult for junior reporters who have no sway as yet, to get the source for the other side. And sometimes (though not often because we all need each other) other journos who have the hook-up, guard their source jealously.

Another way you can end up with a single-source story is if you go to a speech/lecture/talk - and these are ubiquitous in news diaries. If you go to an event where such-and-such semi-distinguished personage is the main or only speaker, of course you will end up with a single source story because you are basically just regurgitating what the person said. If you're lucky (and often with speeches, you're not) they might say something spicy. That is when you will see all the journos who were nodding off or playing with their phone, suddenly straighten up and start scribbling like mad. In such a situation, you may then have an obligation to get the other side of the story, if semi-distinguished personage speaks against someone or something else.

EDITORIALS/COMMENTARY

The editorial section is the easiest way to figure out if a media outlet has a particular bias. If they often use their editorial to attack or support X or Y or Z, then undoubtedly there is a bias and it comes from up high too. Commentary/Opinion pieces can also reflect bias. If a particular media outlet seems to have a lot of commentators/opinion writers/leader writers that share a particular slant, then they probably have a particular bias.

EDITORIALISING

This is something that can be easy to slip into, which kind of takes us back to the original balance discussion. This is where you state an opinion like fact or use emotional descriptives in your leads or headlines without these emotional descriptives actually coming from a particular source. The Independent newspaper in the UK is notorious for this, as is the Mail and Sun on the other (right wing) side. For example, today's front page headline in the Independent is:

ENOUGH OF THIS EDUCATIONAL APARTHEID!

'Educational Apartheid' - definitely an emotional descriptive. It is actually made by a particular principal, but the headline does not say 'Principal decries 'Educational Apartheid' which would be less biased.

WHO'S REPORTING?

Journalists do have their biases. They are human after all. And being so close to the political scene and generally being very strong-headed and opinionated people in their own right, many journos have strong political affiliations.

Now for my one, I think this is wrong. I think journalists should not have political affiliations and certainly not political memberships. Yes, it is everyone's right but at the same time, I think it compromises the perception of a journo's integrity and that is really paramount.

However, the fact remains that journos have their biases, political and otherwise. And it is often easy to tell which journos have these biases - because you tend to see stories from particular politicians or particular parties always being written by them. This is because they have cultivated this politico/party as their personal source and hence they get the scoops first. If you see for example, that an event happened fairly late at night, after the newspaper would start going to press or stories completed for broadcast (varies for broadcast media, between 7-10 for print publications) but yet the next day or next broadcast reports on it extensively, then almost certainly that journo was getting their information beforehand. One of our two political leaders is very media savvy and very good at this. He used to turn in his speeches many hours before he even delivered them, so by the time he actually spoke, it was already written. This then allowed the story to maintain its strength, rather than suffering from the one-day or one-broadcast news cycle that would ordinarily elapse. Brilliant.

Anyhow, that is about all I can think of for now but I hope this makes things clearer for people who have their suspicions of bias. However, it is only those who want to see, who will.

We've heard this one before...

2008-01-14T15:25:00.000-04:00

Just a quick comment on the boo-hooing by the Clinton campaign that the Obama campaign is 'twisting' the comments she made about Martin Luther King and Lyndon B Johnson.

In case you missed it, last week Clinton said that civil rights leader Martin Luther King's dream needed LBJ to make it reality. Her exact quote to Fox News' Major Garrett was:

Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," Clinton said. "It took a president to get it done.

Now as a black person, I don't need the Obama folk to twist or distort that comment for me. Because, trust we have heard this line before. White liberals the world over LOVE, LOVE to remind black people that without them we would have gotten nowhere. They love to remind us of their role in movements WE started and that we should be grateful that they tried to help us.

The British laud and emphasise the work of abolitionists like William Wilberforce in bringing about the end of slavery in the English-speaking Caribbean. Oft overlooked are the thousands of slaves who died throughout the centuries of slavery actually fighting physically for their rights and who revolted with especial regularity in the early 1800s (especially remarkable and shocking was the 1816 Bussa revolt in Barbados as we had previously been thought of as especially docile and a model of slavery), leading colonial authorities to realise that the system was becoming more and more untenable. But the white abolitionists gave us a gift - we should be grateful.

Movies such as the award-winning 'Cry Freedom' emphasise the role of the wonderful white liberals such as Donald Woods who had to (gasp!) flee due to his efforts to reveal the role of the South African apartheid regime in the (somewhat more serious) murder of anti-apartheid fighter Steve Biko. Exile vs. brutal death - but the guy that went into exile is the one highlighted. But he was brave - we should be grateful.

Americans love to emphasise the wonderfulness of Abe Lincoln in freeing the blacks from slavery. Again, the implication that the white man gave us a gift and we should be grateful.

Why there is even a STRONG school of thought among many white Bajans that black Bajans should be grateful to Admiral Lord Nelson because he 'saved' us from the French and if he had not done that, we would have been French slaves and hence had 14 more years of slavery and still be colonies (or departments - same thing) all now. Mind you, Nelson had no love for black people and certainly my ancestors were not first, second or last in his mind when he fought his wars. But again, the white man gave us a gift - we should be grateful.

So when Hilary Clinton says "it took a president to get it done" we know what she means. Despite allegations that LBJ allegedly referred to the Civil Rights Act as the 'Nigger Bill' we had better be grateful for good, liberal white folks like him and by natural extension her.

And it fits with the whole meme surrounding the Clintons and their relationship with the black community. In the love-fest between them and the black community, there has always been this undercurrent that we should be grateful for liberal white folks like them that actually like us and want to do something for us even though we're black. Bob Johnson said as much (see post below).

To be honest, it reminds me of the attitude of a LOT of Pan- Africanists, especially here in the Caribbean have towards Fidel Castro, despite the fact that Cuba is institutionally racist (go on- how many of Cuba's leading politicians are black?). They were so awe-struck and grateful back in the 60s that this white President actually aligned himself with Africa (gasp!) and fought wars on behalf of black freedom fighters there (extra gasp!) that they couldn't get over it. How wonderful! How amazing! How noble!

So having heard this line ALL MY LIFE, I recognised it instantly for what it was when it came from Clinton.

And I for one am fed up with the notion that I should be grateful to white people for one damn thing. Dem don't stir my cou-cou nor wash my clothes - wha I should be grateful to dem fuh?

Oh no he didn't...

2008-01-14T10:11:00.000-04:00

(photo credit: Sioux City Journal site)

Bob Johnson, creator of Black Exploitation Television and Clinton supporter on Barack Obama:

“To me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood — and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book — when they have been involved,”

Mr. Johnson later claimed he was referring to Mr. Obama’s work as a labor organizer in Chicago, which he described in his book “Dreams From My Father.” Like we're so stupid as to believe that - as was said by a commenter on the blog Jack and Jill Politics if that is what he was talking about, why be coy about it? Community organising is nothing to be coy and "I won't say what he was doing" about.

Clearly Bob Johnson was referrign to Obama's teenaged drug use which he has confessed to and discussed at length (unlike Bill "I did not inhale" Clinton!).

Ooooh the dirty tactics of the Clinton campaign are getting to me, they really are. And to use BOB JOHNSON of all people! That man had the nerve to say "as An African-American" he is offended by Barack and then drop nasty veiled hints about his drug use. Even if he repented for a million years, that peddler of pornographic, negative, misogynistic, ignorant, stereotypical, offensive, degrading black imagery does not have the right to be offended by ANYTHING Barack does! As a black person I am offended by Bob Johnson making his billions off of encouraging the degradation of the black race. Few have done more than him to pull down black people. BET has for YEARS encouraged the promotion of the most ignorant, trifling and ridiculous in our culture, under the claim that they are promoting 'black star power'. No Bob, VH1 Soul promotes black star power and manages to do it without couching it in degradation and the lowest common cultural denominator.

How DARE he? And how dare the Clinton campaign use this fool to take pot shots at Obama? My god, what is wrong with this man? Does he really have some deep-seated issue with seeing black people progress? BET was not bad enough, now he must try to pull down someone who is offering something genuinely positive and uplifting to black people? Someone who gives us pride and hope?

You know it all fits together actually. Johnson clearly does not believe in black pride and upliftment as emphasised by BET's focus. And Barack Obama represents black
pride and upliftment. Hence Bob Johnson is trying to take him out.

I trust that the voters in South Carolina are too smart to fall for this. I expect that his comments may actually do more harm than good, because Bob Johnson and BET are not exactly revered among black people with half a brain.

Good one :)

2008-01-14T09:22:00.000-04:00

Willie the Worm as usual got it right. Today's cartoon not only sums up my own uncertainty as a voter (the day before the elections no less!) but the uncertain timbre of the elections as a whole.

On Friday I blogged about the CADRES poll which seemed to indicate a great level of uncertainty in the minds of voters.

Well on Sunday the UWI CHAPO/Boxhill poll came out and confused the issue even further, suggesting that the Bees are benefiting from a 5% swing their way and will marginally take the House.

Sigh.

And in today's paper, both sets of pollsters are sticking to their guns.

A brief summary: CADRES is forecasting a 9.9% swing against the BLP which will give the DLP 20 seats to the Bees 10. They predict that the Dems will get 35.3% of the vote to the BLP's 30.1%.

UWI CHAPO/Boxhill is forecasting a 5% swing (since they are incumbent, maybe lead is a more appropriate term) for the BLP and that they will secure 16 seats to the Dems' 14. Despite this narrower margin seat-wise, they are predicting 48.1% of the vote for the Bees and 34.9% for the Dems.

I guess there is some merit to that old adage of lies, damn lies and statistics because... in the 2003 elections, the Bees got 55% of the vote and the Dems 45%.

Yet both are being forecast to get a smaller percentage overall of the vote now. If the DLP has increased its support which all are agreed they have or rather the BLP's support has decreased, then how is it that the percentage of the vote forecast for the Dems is smaller?

Perhaps it means (I'm thinking on my feet here) that there is a greater number of uncertain voters in this election than the last one? Because as it is, the CHAPO poll is only accounting for 83% of the electorate right now and the CADRES poll even less - just 65.4%.

I know I am certainly uncertain. For a while I have been contemplating how different things might have been if we had a 'presidential' style of voting, where the vote for the leader is seperate and distinct from the vote for the MP. Because I think the polls have reflected that this is what is providing conflict for a lot of the voters. But I think there is another element to it - the team. So the dilemma is: Do I vote for the leader, the candidate or the overall team? I think that is the essence of the problem for a lot of voters.

They prefer Owen over Thompson as leader (hence the BLP's 'leadership matters most' slogan) though the margin is slimmer than before, but they seem to prefer the DLP as a team over the BLP (hence the DLP's emphasis through billboards and ads on their various teams for different areas- health, crime, tourism etc.).

Do you hold your nose at the candidate and maybe the team in order to elect the leader?

Or do you tolerate the leader for the sake of getting the team?

This I think will be the dilemma in tomorrow's elections.

Bajans ent know what dey want

2008-01-11T10:57:00.000-04:00

"Nailbiter!" "Thriller to the finish!"

Rated E for Exciting.

Kid Site sang back in 2006 that Bajans don't know what they want. I wasn't in the island then and am not familiar with the tune, so I don't know exactly what he was referring to in that song. But the title could certainly apply to this current election campaign.

The latest Nation/CADRES poll seems to reflect that...Bajans ent know what or who they want.

On the one hand, the DLP enjoys a five percent lead over the BLP, 35% to 30%. But on the other hand, that is within the poll's +/- five percent error range.

On the one hand, David Thompson's stock has risen dramatically as 41% of respondents now see him as a leader, up from 29% in October. What a difference 3 months makes!

On the other hand, 48% of people still prefer Owen as a leader.

On the one hand there is a projected swing of 9.9% against the incumbent BLP.

On the other hand, 32.7% of voters still don't believe the DLP is ready to govern.

I still have to finish reading Wickham's three page spread of analysis and tables and I will get back with more.

But to me, this just confirms my suggestion that the poll might end up agonisingly close. I find when people are fed up with one party (or even candidate) but still have doubts about the other party or candidate's readiness to lead, that things end up tight.

Look at Jamaica last year. People were fed up with the PNP after 4 terms - they should have been resoundingly swept out of office right? Instead it was and still is a nail-biter, with court cases still being waged over particular seats. This was because people were not certain about the JLP's capacity to lead after a decade of infighting over leadership.

Look at Trinidad in 2001/2 (I can never remember the exact one because they had so many elections in that time frame)- people were fed up with the corruption of the UNC but they were not enamoured of the PNM either. They ended up with a tie that the President had to break.

Look at the current Democratic race in the US. Many Democrats are Clintonism, Clintonistas and reluctant to go back to the divisive political atmosphere of that time. But they are uncertain about Barack Obama as a leader because he lacks political experience at the highest level (so does one-term Senator Clinton but I'll leave that alone for now). So the New Hampshire Primary was agonisingly tight, with Clinton only prevailing by 3% and still getting the exact same 9 delegates that Obama got.

Folks, if it is 15-15 on the 15th (THE POETRY!) I would not be surprised.

India team manager: Symmonds broke pact

2008-01-10T09:35:00.000-04:00

So despite the hysteria of the BCCI, the Indians now seem to be coming closer to admitting that Harbajhan Singh said something offensive to Andrew Symmonds.

But according to India team manager Chetan Chauhan, Symmonds had it coming because he broke a pact made when...get this... Singh racially abused Symmonds BEFORE (with no repercussions mind you).

Cricinfo reported:

Chauhan did not reveal the details of this pact, which, he said, had been made after the ODI in India in October 2007 during which Harbhajan allegedly called Symonds a monkey. It has been learnt that Symonds met Harbhajan after the seventh one-day international in Mumbai and they agreed that they wouldn't abuse each other henceforth.

"In Mumbai they had a friendly pact, an oral pact," Chauhan told Harsha Bhogle on the Star Cricket channel during the first day of India's tour match in Canberra. "I would say the first person to have broken that pact was the person who has complained. He has said it everywhere that it was he who started it. The cause started from there and then the effect came in."

Now this just does not wash with me. It is widely known that Andrew Symmonds was racially abused during Australia's recent tour of India. Far be it from me to call an Aussie (even one of West Indian heritage like Symmonds) a gentleman, but in this case, I think Symmonds was a gentleman for not making a bigger fuss about it then. He never complained, the duplicitous BCCI claimed no racial abuse ever occurred until the press showed footage of fans making monkey actions at Symmonds.

Now it turns out that this racist abuse occurred on the field as well and Symmonds let it slide then too. Malcolm Conn in the Australian reports that:

Ponting took a strong line after the Australian players wanted Harbhajan charged for racially abusing Symonds in October during a one-day tour of India.

It was only a decision by Symonds to privately seek out Harbhajan after the seventh match of the spiteful tournament which defused the situation.

When Harbhajan allegedly called Symonds a "monkey" again during the third day of the second Test, Ponting decided to report the incident because of the first outburst more than two months earlier.

Footage of the incident from the Nine Network shows Symonds saying, "so I'm a monkey, am I?" after an exchange with Harbhajan as they crossed paths at the end of an over.

A short time later, Ponting became involved and was clearly seen saying to Harbhajan, "that's the second time you've called him a monkey". The Australia captain, held up two fingers to emphasise the point, adding "there was once in Mumbai".

So, Harbajhan got away with calling Symmonds a monkey once, because of the graciousness of Symmonds. Now he does it again and the India team manager's excuse is that he did it because Symmonds broke a pact between them not to sledge? IS HE KIDDING ME? I'm so angry about this my hands are shaking as I write.

Look, I do not mind sledging in cricket. It adds a little fun and aggro to the game and no matter what we say it has always been there in nearly every sport. But racist sleding is something else altogether and not acceptable. Because it just becomes nasty then. I do not give a damn if Symmonds broke the pact with the racist Harbajhan not sledge. Sure Harbajhan is entitled to respond in kind but it DOES NOT GIVE HIM THE RIGHT to resort to racism. Sledge the man, but leave out the racism.

As a black person I am just enraged by this and by the BCCI's disgusting, duplicitous, strong-armed approach. Despite all this, the BCCI's vice-pres Lalit Modi is still laying on the the threats to cancel the tour if they do not get the desired result regarding Harbajhan:

"

It was an interim decision of the ICC to ban Harbhajan, and, because of that, it is an interim decision by the BCCI to continue the tour," Modi told the Sydney Morning Herald. "The controversy continues until Harbhajan's name is cleared. We are not applying pressure to the ICC. They have simply reacted the way they should have. This isn't an issue about money or power, but what is right for the game. We will wait to see what the outcome of Harbhajan's appeal is and we will make a decision from there."

So dey wrong and strong too? It is becoming increasingly clear that Harbajhan said something offensive to Symmonds and that he KNEW it was considered racially offensive after all the tension and controversy caused by it two, three months ago. Yet it appears that he did it AGAIN. Once might be a mistake (not that I buy this BS Indian line that 'monkey' is not such an insult and they revere monkeys) but once you know it is considered racially offensive, to do it again is disgusting.

Black people don't find lynching funny

2008-01-09T15:11:00.000-04:00

So from the 'not for real!' files... Golf Channel anchor Kelly Tilghman has apologised for her comment during Friday's telecast of the PGA Tour's opening event at the Mercedes-Benz Championship that young golf players should:

"lynch Tiger Woods in a back alley"

as a way of competing with him as the most dominant player in the history of golf.

No, really.

That really happened.

She really said that.

I...I have no words.

Of course, the apologists are coming out swinging, saying she meant it in a 'rhetorical' context and that she was not actually urging folks to go out there and lynch Tiger Woods.

Well. Thank goodness for that. That makes it so much better!

They are also saying she meant it as a 'joke' and it was just a 'stupid comment'.

Now far be it from me to defend Tiger 'I'm not really black, loves his whiter-than-white women' Woods but...come on! It would seem to me that 'lynch' should not go in any sentence involving a black man, unless it happens to be his last name (hehehehe).

Don Imus, somebody done come fuh yuh crown - cos that is the most phenomenally stupid comment I have heard a public figure make in a long time. How, how, how did that slip from her brain out of her mouth? How did she think that was going to end up as a joke? As it was sliding from brain to mouth, didn't it occur to her 'whoa, he's black- mission abort! ABORRRRT!'

Simply put - black people do not find lynching funny.

Forget racism- I don't know or care if it is. I just cannot forgive such stupidity.

The ICC has no balls

2008-01-09T10:11:00.000-04:00

Just a quick comment on the ICC's actions in the India/Australia series.
Banning Steve Bucknor from officiating in the next test and waffling on Harbajhan Singh's 3-match suspension not only sets a bad precedent, it shows the ICC is totally without moral courage or scruples.

As a cricket fan, I am FED UP with the spoilt behaviour of the Asian cricket boards - and the BCCI is the absolute worst out of the lot. They are as terrible, biased and high-handed in their way now as the English and Australian cricket boards were back in the 20th century.

Because they control the largest portion of cricket fans (well over 1 billion) they know all they have to do is throw a tantrum and the ICC caves in to them. It is one thing for the fans to throw a tantrum - and India certainly never seems short of large numbers of hard-back men who have nothing better to do in the MIDDLE of a working day than burn an effigy in the streets for a tv camera (seriously, don't they have jobs? Or do they go and burn an effigy during their lunch break?). But it is quite another thing for a cricket board to take leave of reason, give in to emotionalism and make unreasonable demands.

Steve Bucknor made some poor decisions in the match. Tough beans. That happens - to me it adds to the texture of the game of uncertainties we call cricket. If you are a good team, you overcome them. If you are a sore loser, you bitch and moan - as the Indians are doing.

They just glad to have something to take the attention off. Let's get it straight - India STILL would not have won if those decisions had not been made. They had no problem with Bucknor in the first test - which they lost handsomely. Now some decisions don't go their way, they have an issue with him?

There is a reason Bucknor is the most experienced umpire in the entire history of cricket - he has generally been very good, a cut above the rest. No-one has ever accused him of having the slightest bias for or against a team - as a West Indian (and we have suffered so much bias in the game of cricket) it would be appallingly hypocritical for him to be biased when we have been on the receiving end from the very start of our cricketing history. Admittedly, he seems to be getting past his best, but they had enough confidence in him to appoint him for such a high profile series but now apparently not enough to keep him in the face of blackmail.

It is RIDICULOUS for the ICC to give in to this. I was under the impression that there are particular rules in cricket which we ALL have to abide by. I was under the impression that if you do not fulfill the terms of the Future Tours Programme, that you will be heavily fined - that is the reason we sent our team to Zimbabwe. So if India is threatening to pull their team out of a tour that does not suit them, are they not subject to these rules and fines? Let dem go 'long and pull out their team - and then FINE DEY TAIL!

I'm so annoyed.

Pondering the New Hampshire primary ...among other things

2008-01-09T08:51:00.000-04:00

So Hilary won the New Hampshire primary last night. Cue the 'Comeback Kid II' quotes from surprised pundits who were getting caught up in Obamamania. There have been a lot of blushes this morning and the UK Guardian even wondered 'Did racist voters cost Obama the primary?' and pondered on the insidious 'Bradley effect'.

Me? I still believe Obama can and will take it all the way. It just means it will be a hard-fought race after all. Which is perfectly fine and definitely more interesting for political junkies like myself. I always found the the 'Hilary is inevitable' line offensive to democracy and independent thought. And while I liked the 'Obama wave' line, it was a similar affront to independent-minded voters. It should not be a coronation or restoration - it's supposed to be an election.

No candidate is inevitable, unless the votes are rigged. The media is quite often so wrapped up inside the political process that they are essentially on the inside looking out and hence seem to be surprised when people... assert their right to express their own, un-pundit approved opinion.

So! Having said all that, this armchair (well computer chair) pundit still thinks Obama will take it. The Democrats would be stupid not to nominate him. Simply, Obama won over Hilary by 8 percentage points in Iowa. Hilary squeaked by with a 2 percentage point win over Obama.

Which just goes to show that when people go against Hilary (as they did in Iowa), they go pretty strongly against her. Whereas when they go against Obama (as they did last night in New Hampshire) they go much less forcefully against him.

Which ties in with what we have known all along, way back from when a presidential candidacy was just a gleam in Hilary's eye. She has very high negative ratings. A lot of people just do not like her.

Which brings me to my 'other things'. Why is there so much vitriol towards Hilary Clinton? I've never gotten it. She has never seemed more obnoxious a politician or person than anyone else in politics. She is not a charmer either, bless her. She can be quite stiff. But I don't get the hatred and high negatives against her, especially since much of her life in the public eye has been as the wife of a political personage (which brings up whole other issues about this 'experience' thing she is running on- experience as a first lady? As a woman and a feminist even I don't consider that genuine political experience. To me, nothing beats experience as an elected official- why are people no probing that more deeply?). What she do them? Who corns she mash?

I would hate, hate, hate to think that the reason for all this Hilary-hatred (which does not seem to transfer to Bill, even though we know the sleazy things he did in much more graphic detail) is because she was the first First Lady to be an equal partner in intelligence and ambition. Is it just Hilary's attitude and ambition that pisses people off? Seriously, what is it? Because I cannot pinpoint anything else.

Which brings me strange vitriol on a local level - (since believe it or not, what with my overwhelming interest in elections further north elections are going on in Bim) Clyde Mascoll.

I don't quite get why people are so mad at him. I mean yes he switched sides, but lots of people switch sides - this is not something unprecedented in politics in Barbados or the Caribbean. Vaughn Lewis in St. Lucia switched sides. Bruce Golding switched sides, led a revolt in his party, broke off part of it to form a new one and then switched back and still became Prime Minister. Maharaj in Trinidad didn't quite switch sides (unless you consider him a 'side' all on his own) but he brought down his own party, made them essentially lose government and yet was welcomed back into the UNC.

Furthermore...um, it seemed like the folks in the DLP wanted Mascoll out. Because it certainly seemed like they went out of their way to not just strip him of leadership, but to do it in an embarassing way. So if they wanted him out, why are they so very angry that he got out?

I understand perfectly that people never like political grasshoppers, but the level of opprobium aimed at this particular grasshopper seems like an awful lot more than usual.

Is there something else going on that I don't know or understand? Because admittedly, I was living overseas when all that went down in 06 (though I did follow it online).

Just some thoughts.

BELIEVE!

2008-01-04T21:41:00.000-04:00

It was a few weeks back when I decided to just believe.

Like nearly every black person in the world watching this unfold, I have had a hard time believing that Americans would actually vote for a black man. The painful civil-rights struggle of African-Americans is known to black people throughout the world and it is asking a huge leap for us to believe that not only will he not end up dead but that people...white people! might actually vote for him.

Interestingly enough, it was a comment from Barack's wife, Michelle Obama that finally got me to that point where I had the courage to believe.

It's long but read it...

BRZEZINSKI: The polls are showing your husband is trailing Hillary 46% to 37% in the African-American community. What is going on here?

OBAMA: First of all, I think that's not going to hold. I'm completely confident. Black America will wake up and get it, but what we're dealing with in the Black community is just the natural fear of possibility. You know, when I look at my life, you know, the stuff that we're seeing in these polls has played out my whole life. Always been told by somebody that I'm not ready, you know, I can't do something. My scores weren't high enough. There's always that doubt in the back of the minds of people of color. People who have been oppressed and haven't been given real opportunities that you never really, that you believe somehow, someone is better than you. You know, deep down inside you doubt whether you can do it because that's all you've been told is, no, wait. That's all you hear. And you hear it from people who love you, not because they don't care about you, but they're afraid. They're afraid that something might happen.................................................

Brzezinski: It's interesting you say that, excuse me, because the stewardess yesterday, a 52 year African American and I asked her are you interested in Barack Obama and would you vote for him and she said I don't think so because he probably can't win because he's black.

Obama: That's right, that the physiology that's going on in our souls and our heads and I understand it, I know where it's coming from you know and I think it's one of the horrible legacies of racism and discrimination and depression you know it keeps people down in their souls in a way where you know sometimes they can't move beyond it. But the truth of the matter is that that's something we're gonna have to get over as a community and you do it by forging ahead fearlessly. I would not be where I am, I wouldn't have gone to Princeton, I wouldn't have gone to Harvard I certainly wouldn't be a practicing attorney, neither would Barack if we listened to that doubt. You know, and there are a lot of kids who I know who aren't pushing themselves or going for what they know they can do because of that doubt. We have to move beyond it not just for Barack in this Presidency, but for the future of our community we’ve got to show people of color a different possibility. And I think that once they see what's possible then they own it, they believe it, I think that some black folks think that Barack won't win because the white people won't vote for Barack.
......................................

Brzezinski: Now it seems like you are almost, or you are speaking directly to the Black community here about this psychological barrier this fear of possibilities, you have Wall Street journal doing a front page article about whether or not a qualified African American can win the While House, to those who say Barack Obama cannot possibly win the election because he is black what do you say?

Obama: I say wait and see you know wait and see. Barack has been doing stuff he's not supposed to, I'm used to doing stuff that people told me I wasn't supposed to do that's my whole life. It's like ok here we go again you know telling me I can't do something before I even try. I mean, that's just not healthy. It's just not healthy. It's not healthy for people, it's not healthy for young people to hear those messages from anyone because it's not true. It's like me going into your house and telling your daughter who she's going to be today. You wouldn't allow that.

Brzezinski: And she wouldn't either.

Obama: And she wouldn't either, but fortunately she already has the self-assurance to know who she can be. Now you imagine millions of children who don't have that. They don't have parents who were affirming them you know they don't go to schools where teachers were affirming them. Everyday they hear what they can't be. The Wall Street polls don't even begin to touch on that. That's why I'm like give it up, stop it, because you can't start polling now, you've gotta start at the root cause of this. This stuff is deep and we haven't touched it as a nation. We don't deal with pain that has been caused by racism and division. We don't deal with it. And then we're surprised when it rears its head among whites and blacks. We haven't dealt with it and it's hurting all of us. It's hurting all of us. We can't afford to have generations of children of any race believing they can't be exactly who they think they should be.

I have to admit - that knocked me back. Because though I am as progressive and bold and confident a black female as has ever walked this earth, I was thinking that way too. "Obama is great, but... no way, it's too much, it's too soon, they're not ready."

That interview really made me look inside myself. How could I reconcile that confidence with that fearfulness? It's mental slavery, pure and simple.

So I decided then no more. I was going to step out not just on faith, but in confidence that an intelligent, articulate, inspiring political leader who happens also to be black can take power in the most powerful nation on earth.

And last night was the first step. In "the whitest place outside of the North Pole" as one CNN political pundit put it, Barack Obama convincingly won the Iowa Democratic caucus.

That's right. In a state that is 95% white, Obama walked away with 38% of support. That just happened to be a larger percentage of the vote than his opposite number, Republican caucus winner, Mike Huckabee, secured with 34% support.

Furthermore, more than TWICE as many people came out for this caucus in Iowa than did in 2004. That has to mean something. People are getting the message. People are inspired to come out and support this man. People are ready for change - not just change in the trite, over-politicised 'it's time for a change' kind of way. Real meaningful change.

It's time to believe.

Happy New Year!

2008-01-02T21:07:00.000-04:00

I hope the start of your new year has been better than mine - a vicious bout of dengue has had me under pressure the last few days so excuse me if I play a little catch up here.

First off, congrats to the West Indies team on a well-deserved, genuinely well-crafted victory over South Africa last week. As you would know, my expectations rose and fell throughout the game, but in the end, they did it. They really, really did it and for now I will be happy with that victory and take it for what it was.

The second test is underway right now - I dare not make any predictions, either positive or negative. I shall just wait and see what happens.

I have a lot more in mind that I'd like to discuss - elections! Pakistan!New Year's resolutions!

...But I'm still not 100% and this is taking it out of me so I'll get back to all that later.

Sigh...

2007-12-28T11:57:00.001-04:00

In this political season let me resurrect a political slogan from the 1970s, with a slight twist:

How long is too long if it's bad for you?

It occurred to me today that West Indies cricket has been in decline just about half of my life - I mark our 1995 loss at home to Australia as the beginning of the end. How long is too long to hold out hope?

Like all paranoid, superstitious and masochistic WI fans, I have already begun the process of recrimination, self-blame, doubt and misery.

Maybe it was my fault. I DID say last night that the last two days when I did not bother to get up to watch and support my team, that they did well. Perhaps I should have just left it so and got up at my regular time.

But...but...it seemed alright in the morning. The miracle team of the last two days was still in effect, skittling out the Proteas for 195 all out. We even had the luxury of enforcing the follow-on if we wished.

We had a handsome lead of 213 runs. Our batsmen had clicked and played with maturity and application in the first innings. The South Africans by contrast, were all at sea.

Now? After 6 wickets lost for a mere 22 runs in the last ten overs, I am again feeling that familiar feeling of woe. The only hope I cling to is we have a lead of 359 with two wickets in the bag. I want to believe that we still "have this game in the bag" as CMC Cricket Plus host Adriel 'Woody' Richards just assured us so confidently. Only 6 350-plus scores have been made to win a match in the history of test cricket.

I want to believe. But bitter history has also shown that this WI team of recent vintage has a remarkable knack for turning victory into defeat.

But I still want to believe.

Benazir Bhutto 1953-2007 - Brave or Stubborn?

2007-12-27T09:38:00.000-04:00

Various reports are now filtering through that former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazhir Bhutto has been assassinated in a suicide attack on her election rally in Rawalpindi a short while ago.

Reports are still conflicting - some are saying she was unhurt, then several others are saying she was critically injured and rushed to the hospital. I have seen 3 reports now - NBC10, Canadian Press and Wikimedia that indicate that she has indeed been murdered.

I have been following the events in Pakistan with interest since Bhutto returned. All the while I could not help wondering - was she incredibly brave and determined or incredibly stubborn and power- hungry? She and her family seem to have sacrificed so much already for Pakistan - her father was murdered, her brother was murdered and now apparently she has been murdered as well. People patently wanted to kill her and many others patently did not want her in power. Yet she had wealth and could have remained in luxurious exile instead of facing suicide attacks, house arrest and detention and the lot.

Why do it? I will admit I have a grudging and slightly puzzled respect for her. She was fearfully intelligent and articulate whenever I heard her speaking and it just always seemed to me to be impressive that in an Islamic country, some parts of which are gripped by Islamic conservatism, that a woman could wield so much power and influence.

But on the other hand, she wasn't exactly a sweet bread was she? She was charged with corruption and her governments were not terribly successful. Yet... yet... I admire gutsy, ballsy women like Bhutto - she reminds me a bit of South Africa's Winnie Mandela - also much maligned, also at her greatest in a conflict-torn nation and also very brave.

In the end, extremism seems to be winning in Pakistan. God help them.

Update: You can find more information about the unfolding situation around Bhutto's death at Metroblogging Karachi.

Well I'll be!

2007-12-27T08:11:00.000-04:00

(photo by Getty Images. Sourced from cricinfo.com)

Tony Cozier put it most succintly:

Almost every preconception, all based on solid statistical or circumstantial evidence, was negated on the opening day of the first Test at St.George's Park.

You're damn right Tony. Who would have thought that this West Indies team would bat through most of two days? Who would have thought that our present healthy score of 400/8 would come not through the heroism of one player as all the rest fell pathetically around him, but from... (gasp!) building several solid partnerships and... grafting when necessary? Well I'll be!

Peoples, Marlon Samuels actually GRAFTED yesterday for a couple hours - took 142 deliveries to get to his half-century, you know! I couldn't believe my eyes. That was Marlon Nathaniel Samuels playing cautiously and defensively and taking his time? What yuh telling me at all?

It's not just that we built up a big score you know. It is HOW we did it. By playing against the bitter stereotype that has come to define us in the last decade. We did not collapse in a heap when two wickets fell close together. We did not attempt to flash and drive and play big shots when consolidation was needed. Truth be told, Marlon and Shiv were so flipping boring there as they poked around in the afternoon that I was falling asleep watching them. But it's alright! I ent mind!

Furthermore, we even got some help from the lower order - Sammy made 38 before he was controversially run out (and the less I say about that the better- all I will say is if anyone believed a white South African tv umpire was going to give the benefit of the doubt to a black, West Indian batsman over his home team, I have a mountain in Barbados to sell you).

One thing was the same as ever though - as I wrote, Shiv 'Tiger' Chanderpaul made his 17th test century - his 15th in the last five years. Have I mentioned that I love Shiv? That is my player from way, way back. He doesn't give you butterflies, wondering when it's all going to end. He comes in there and sticks in the opposition's craw and dependably makes runs. He's only about 5"5 but he's the real big man in WI cricket now.

Anyhow, considering how the first two days have gone, I am actually, tentatively looking forward to this test match and even this series.

Update:
Well I'll damned well be! WHO are these players? South Africa pinned back to 63/4? Gibbs, Smith and Kallis all back in the pavilion? Seriously...what is going on here? I hardly dare believe it...

Update 2:
Well I STILL damned well be! Knocking back South Africa for 195 all out? Allowing ourselves the luxury of enforcing the follow-on if we did so wish? Good catching, incisive and penetrating bowling? I ... I have no words.

Annnnd... they're off!

2007-12-24T09:45:00.000-04:00

So just a day after I speculated on the possibility of a tie, the Prime Minister rung the bell and the election date for Barbados is January 15th, 2008.

I must admit - I'm excited. This will be the first time I'm voting. I was of age for the last election but it was called while I was still at university finishing up my exams/ starting summer school and it did not seem right to come home and vote when I had little idea of the issues and what have you.

I must also admit - I'm still in the 'uncertain' category. I figured as time went on I would become more certain as I listened to the two parties put forward their cases but instead I have become more and more uncertain. :(

Both sides have characters that I respect and have made points that I agree with.
But more pressingly, both sides in recent times, as the political ante has been upped, have made some statements that repelled me and made me reconsider my opinion of the person and party.

Having done some parliament reporting in my former professional incarnation, I also know and have interviewed characters on both sides. I know who is intelligent and earnest and who is not. Yet that still hasn't made it any easier for me at all.

What if...there was a tie?

2007-12-19T08:29:00.000-04:00

This has been buzzing through my mind for the last few weeks, what with the heightened and heated political atmosphere in Bim. For several reasons, I think this still-not-called-but-definitely-in-the-air election could be quite close.

It is clear now that there is a desire for change in Barbados. According to various CADRES polls, there is likely to be a 5% swing against the ruling BLP. BUT! on the other hand, the majority of people still prefer Prime Minister Owen Arthur as a leader to the DLP's David Thompson.

Then in an analysis of his own poll results, published two weeks ago, CADRES director Peter Wickham revealed that there were as many as 9 current BLP seats where 'change is likely' - again because of the swing factor and the fact that the margin of support in these ridings is less than the overall 5% swing.

Now...the DLP has 6 seats presently. Add 9 seats to that 6 and you get 15. That would mean an evenly divided parliament.

I think it could happen. I think people are weary (and wary) of 3 terms of the same government and Barbadians have been generally inclined to change parties every two terms or so. Three terms is already fortunate and due in some large part to division within and doubt about the DLP.

Still, I don't know if people are quite sold on the DLP as yet. Their team is rather inexperienced but what else can you expect when a party has been in opposition for 13years? You have to start somewhere. I also don't think people are quite sold on Thompson as leader yet.

I think this ambivalence could lead to the electorate doing what the Trinis did 5 years ago and what the Jamaicans nearly did this year - a tie or at the least, a very slim majority for the winning party.

I think this could be a good thing. Honestly, when JA's elections looked to be tied, I was dismayed because Jamaicans are so politically partisan and bitter that I did not see how the two opposition parties could work together.

Even in Trinidad, I thought it would have been finicky because of the racial divide in their politics.

But let's face it, Bim is pretty homogenous racially and politically. Politicians and party supporters like to play up the differences in the parties but I find them slight.

Which is why I am far more ambivalent about politics in Barbados than I am about say politics in the US (Democrats!) or the UK (Labour...despite Blair) or even other Caribbean islands. Honestly, I find it a lot less exciting, even though it affects me directly. There are no great ideological differences between the political parties in Barbados. Seriously - name me one major ideological difference between the two. People say the BLP tends more towards business and top-down development while the DLP tends more towards labour and grassroots-up development(their support base has traditionally been among the trade unions) but to me, even that difference is not significant.

Neither party is foolish enough to alienate labour and both have had their good and bad times with the labour unions. Similarly, neither is foolish enough to alienate big business.

There are few ideological differences on education, Caribbean integration efforts,employment etc.

This is why the parties try to play up the differences in the personalities involved. But I don't especially care about a politician's personality. They could be boring and dry as hell - all I want to know is what they stand for and if they have the ability to get it done.

Which brings me back to my point (sorta). This is why I think that a tied parliament could be a good thing. Since there are few major ideological differences and both parties have people of ability, I think there is little danger in Barbados having a coalition government.

Of all the countries in the Caribbean, I think Barbadians have the maturity and practical nature to be able to handle a coalition government. All over the world, there are coalition governments and they function reasonably well - Germany, Canada, Denmark for example. I think coalitions work well in efficient, practical, fairly homogenous countries and Bim fits that bill.

I relish the idea of both sets of politicians being kept on their toes by the knowledge that neither of them has the advantage and actually having to work hard to hold their place. Writing on the close Jamaican elections some months ago, I mused:

On the one hand, I have been impressed by Golding’s call for more co-operation and rather convinced by his argument that the close election results might show that Jamaicans are weary of the vicious partisan nature of their politics and by their actions are forcing the political parties to work together in the best interest of Jamaica.

On the other hand…isn’t this what democracy is all about? Can not the closeness of the election and narrowness of the victory margin also be seen as the voters’ way of keeping checks and balances on their politicians? Mulling it over now, I wonder if it could not be a way of ensuring that the party in power does not get too comfortable.

Perhaps Jamaicans realised they had erred in allowing one party to become too comfortable and by effecting such a narrow balance of power in the House, they have decided to get back to keeping politicians on their toes- as they should be.

After all, corruption is a serious issue in Jamaica and Jamaican politics. A party with a small margin of victory and a watchful, pitbull Opposition is less likely to raid the public coffers and try to get away with million-dollar hanky panky.

However, the question is - would local politicians actually be mature enough to form a coalition? Would they actually be bold enough to select Cabinet ministers from the 'other party'? Or would they rather hold out and wait on the GG to make the decision on who should lead?

It's like MJ with the Wizards...

2007-12-18T10:52:00.000-04:00

There has been something going on in India for the last few weeks that I have been trying hard to ignore.

Thankfully, it ended this past weekend but now Trini cricket commentator Fazeer Mohammed just HAD to bring it up again in his Express/Cricinfo column.

The rebel Indian Cricket 20/20 Cricket League and more specifically, Brian Lara's million-dollar disappointment. It was T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E!

31 runs in six matches. Lord have us mercy. The (very) brief 'highlights' that I saw of his innings showed that he had no enthusiasm for the game and perhaps, was not quite able to get to grips with this swiping from ball one. After all, Lara is not a swiper. He can beat the ball when necessary (yes, we're looking at you Robin Peterson, with your 28 runs in one over) but those tended to be deliciously beautiful and brutal cameos. Lara was not a poker and consolidator either (we love you Shiv) but rather something in between.

I liked Lara best at Test level - where you got two and three days to savour his building a master-class of an innings. 20/20 is not the format to enjoy such a player- that is snack food cricket for cricketers of more limited but exciting talent (hi Chris Gayle). Lara is by comparison, a full-on Sunday meal.

I say all that to say this. US$1 million aside, this ICL thing may not have been a good idea for Lara. Most of the best players have copped out and gone over to the officially sanctioned IPL anyhow. And his enthusiasm for this curry-goat cricket seems to be lacking.

Worst, it risks sullying his legacy, though only slightly. As Faz put it:

No-one should begrudge Lara fully capitalising on his still considerable market value for as long as he can before turning his attention to other pursuits, whether cricket-related or otherwise. However, he should be conscious of what sort of legacy he wants to leave behind after a long and generally distinguished playing career.

We can argue about his contribution as a captain and team player until there's no more sorrel in the market, but no sensible observer of the game can seriously challenge his position of pre-eminence - both in terms of quantity and style-among batsmen of the modern era. In that context, to see images of the master batsman being stumped by a mile, or bowled aiming an agricultural heave, or walking away after a first-ball duck, conjures images of a great boxing champion who just didn't know when to quit.

It was like when Michael Jordan retired from basketball for what we thought was the last time (and what a last outing it was - one more ring, battling through flu and fatigue to make one more fade away jumper to clinch the game - beautiful!) and then returned to play with... the Washington Wizards...or whatever they are called now.

It was...gross. And undignified. And I have largely stricken it from my memory because I prefer MJ's legacy to be neatly wrapped up at the conclusion of his career with the Bulls. It will never be that way again. Even the legend who made it so cannot make it so again.

Same thing with Lara. This ICL thing will be stricken from my memory and I hope he does not tarry with it too long. Surely he does not need the money. He only has one child to support after all and plenty of money to do it with. He should get on with writing his memoirs or holding some more boss fetes and make a business of that (a la Courtney Walsh).

When legends don't know when to quit it becomes...not quite sad but disconcerting.

Power Blacks for Obama

2007-12-13T09:54:00.000-04:00

Not that this was not already known, but movie star Will Smith has pledged his support for would-be Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

"I'm available for whatever he needs," declared Smith.

Smith joins other high-profile blacks in supporting Obama. Oprah Winfrey joined him on the campaign trail last weekend and Michael Jordan was one of the biggest contributors to his campaign when he was running for the Senate in '04.

What I find interesting in all of this is not just that these black celebrities are backing Obama, but the kind of black celebs that are backing him.

Oprah, Will Smith and Michael Jordan are probably 3 of the most famous black people in the world. But what they all have in common is their appeal to white people - like pundits are so fond of saying about Obama himself, they 'transcend race'.

Oprah's biggest supporters are white women from 'Middle America'. Michael Jordan was the ultimate, clean-cut, race-transcending, non-threatening black sports celeb. Everyone loved Mike and wanted to be like Mike. And Will Smith is the most highly-paid black actor (possibly the most highly-paid actor full stop) in Hollywood. He no longer suffers the problems other black actors have of getting type-cast and pigeon-holed into race-specific parts. He's just a movie star, a leading man.

I don't know if it is a sign of things to come. I personally have decided that I am going to put doubt and fear and cynicism and disappointment aside and just believe that Barack Obama could really go all the way, that Americans are ready.

Nostalgia for a different kind of friendship

2007-12-11T18:58:00.000-04:00

I've been meaning to write this from the other night when I went to the movies.

It wasn't at the movies but rather on the way there that I was hit with a powerful bout of nostalgia. We were listening to a CD full of early 'noughties' (00s) alternative rock - Creed and the like and it just really reminded me of my UWI days, when those were the tunes Bass XS would play right at the end of the night - really to drive out the party-hearty, dancehall and hip-hop crazed crowd, but it just added to the enjoyment of me and my friends.

Anyhow from that bout of nostalgia came the thought:
'Why do I feel so strongly about my UWI years?' My boyfriend for one, is often wont to roll his eyes when I go on about my 'UWI years'. It's not like I'm one of those people that can't let go of the wonder of the university years - obviously I can and have. I graduated, went to work, went to another university etc.

It's just that... at the risk of sounding corny and superior - I think it's just different when you live on campus. The friendships and experiences are much more intense. And having lived on-campus at one university and off-campus at another, I can definitely say the on-campus experience was better.

It's akin to the difference between having a boyfriend who you visit and making that commitment to living with someone. Not that we made a commitment to live together on hall - it's just that we all chose to live on the same hall.

But it still creates a different, deeper kind of bond when you actually live with someone. Seeing people practially 24/7 means you get to know them a hell of a lot better. You are to some extent dependent on them - if you're sick to take care of you, if you're depressed to cheer you up, if you're tipsy to carry you home.

You really cannot replicate the kind of friendship that can come out of that.

What journalism is (supposed to be) all about

2007-12-06T16:07:00.000-04:00

It must be fate. Just this morning I was sighing in exasperation at yet another ridiculously slanted post on the Barbados Free Press (which I have really been trying to like, because part of their hearts does seem to be in the right place - i.e. speaking truth to power...sometimes) and thinking I really need to do a post about the tension between the main stream media and the burgeoning world of cyber/citizen journalists.

I myself am a blogger and I appreciate the way the internet allows me to get my voice out. I also appreciate how the internet has totally turned the journalistic concept of 'gatekeepers' upside down - there are no gatekeepers to the news anymore - everyone's voice can be heard if they have a computer. And of course, I love the immediacy of the medium. Just look at what happened with my posts on the earthquake - because of my blog I was able to 'report' on it right away and that was valuable to people who were trying to find out what had happened, particularly with the cellular neetworks jammed.

But...!

I am also at heart a journalist. I worked freelance and as an intern with newspapers from the time I was in secondary school, I did my first degree in journalism and I have worked in and now around journalism full-time for a few years now.

And knowing both sides of the coin as I do, I really do not appreciate the smug and naive attitude that many cyber-journos take towards main stream media. The BFP for instance, loves to slag off the Nation newspaper (disclosure: I used to work there)and basically every traditional media outlet in Bim as being cowardly, partisan and practicing bad journalism.

When it is clear to me that the folks at BFP have no clue how real journalism works. For one, they hide - behind firewalls, behind fake names. Real journalists do not have that luxury. Your byline is right out there and if you make a mistake or worse libel someone, people know who to sue and/or get fired.

Another issue I have is that they rarely bother to examine both sides of an issue - if they get 'news' they run with it based on its shock value without bothering to check the other side and then claim they are boldly going where no MSM hack dares go.

That is not bold. It is crass sensationalism and irresponsible journalism.

If they were just careless and cowardly, I would not mind so much - if tabloid type journalism is your thing, then go for it. But to couple that with mocking main stream media companies that are held to much higher and more difficult standards, galls me.

So back to fate. I was thinking all this and then I saw this interview on the Huffington Post with the Diva of DC, fearless journalism icon Helen Thomas. I love her. I LOVE HER. She is one of my true journalism heroes. The excerpts below from her interview exemplify how I feel about this issue.

Take it away Helen...

Do you think technology is changing that? That a good reporter will always find a venue because there are so many media outlets now?

H.T.: No, but I do think it is kind of sad when everybody who owns a laptop thinks they're a journalist and doesn't understand the ethics. We do have to have some sense of what's right and wrong in this job. Of how far we can go. We don't make accusations without absolute proof. We're not prosecutors. We don't assume.

So if there's this amateur league of journalists out there, trying to do what you do...

H.T.: It's dangerous.

What makes it dangerous? Isn't more information always better?

H.T.: Not necessarily. Not if it isn't true. It could be out there and it could really muck up the whole picture. I'm not trying to suppress information; I'm just saying you have to be very careful.

H.T.: My advice is simply try, as best you can, to only write the truth and try to check everything, and I think you just hope for the best. And, certainly, if someone gives you a story, I think you have to look a gift horse in the mouth. You have to find out why they're peddling it to you.

Always question why anybody does things. That's probably good advice for anybody.

Earthquake...what earthquake?

2007-11-30T16:58:00.000-04:00

I have been AMAZED at the number of people that viewed my blog over the last 24 hours or so since the earthquake hit. In the few months that I have been blogging, the most visitors I'd had previous to this was during the Jamaican elections and I was counting them in the scores then, not the THOUSANDS.

But yesterday's quake and the fact that I was foolhardy/stubbornly journalistically-minded enough to start blogging about it 20 minutes later, brought 3663 visitors to my blog! And 700 so far have checked in today!

Anyhow, despite the widespread panic yesterday, there were several hardy souls who didn't feel it at all. A friend of mine said she was just walking along and she didn't feel a thing - she only realised something was wrong when other people started shrieking and running. Same thing with my aunt's husband - according to her, he said he didn't feel it and it was only when he saw people panicking that he started asking people "What happened? What's wrong?".

One, I'm amazed that they didn't feel it, especially since it went on for so long. The time that it occurred seemed to go on for ages for me. I had time to:
1. think I was light-headed
2. then realise my co-workers were freaking out,
3. realise it was an earthquake when I heard someone say so
4. heard people running outside,
5. think it may be minor like a much smaller one I experienced at university in Jamaica several years ago
6. clutch my desk and wait for the swaying to stop (I know, not smart)
7. realise the swaying wasn't stopping
8. exclaim out loud "My god, why is it still shaking?"
9. realise I should really get to hell outside because it was strong and not stopping
10. Grab my phone and scurry outside.

And all this time, the whole place was just swaying and rocking - somewhat like being in a rocking chair except it was side to side.

It felt like a long damn 20 seconds.

Two, I'm thinking how disconcerting it must have been for the people who didn't feel it to be going about their business and see everyone else screaming and running and freaking out and not have a clue about why. Almost surreal.

Earthquake update #4 and Happy Independence!

2007-11-30T11:40:00.000-04:00

First thing, Happy Independence to all Barbadians here and away! And congrats to our two newest knights, particularly Sir Professor Hilary Beckles.

Second thing...wow! What a dramatic precursor to Independence, nuh? The quake yesterday just had everything kind of turned upside down. Town was apparently full of people waiting for the final chase of the $20 000 Digicel Fugitive contest so when the quake hit, it was just federation - people running up and down shrieking. Ironically, the most seriously injured person seemed to have been the head of the emergency services, Judy Thomas of CERO (Central Emergency Relief Organisation) who was trampled by panicked crowds as she came out of her office in town. She's now on two weeks leave. What a t'ing.

Like I said yesterday, a house in Ellerton, St. George was damaged - it was pretty shocking to see it on the news yesterday - a big, stable-looking wall house and a big chunk of it just dropped off and fell into a big crack in the earth that just opened up.

There was one fatality in Guadeloupe - a 3 year old girl was killed when a wall collapsed and fell on her. Her 7 year old sister was critically injured. The French and kweyol speaking islands - Guadeloupe, Dominica, Martinique and St. Lucia - seem to have been the most badly affected by the quake. Buildings and one bank reportedly collapsed in Martinique, according to Caribbean 360.

What else? Apparently it was the strongest quake in the Caribbean since 1974 but the strongest in Barbados since 1953.

funny earthquake update

2007-11-29T16:14:00.000-04:00

Oh funny note before I leave and try to get home. Guardian General swooped in RIGHT AWAY and is sponsoring Starcom radio's emergency broadcast on the earthquake. So every 15 minutes or so between nervy reports from town and around the region, you hear 'Guardian General - trust us to be there!'

Talk about marketing!

Earthquake updates

2007-11-29T16:08:00.001-04:00

Can you believe I'm still at work? Moreover, I'm actually working! (blogging aside) I just corrected and sent an article for publication.

According to this report, the quake was actually 7.4.

I feel very uneasy because I just heard a report coming through on the radio saying that while no widespread damaging tsunamis are expected for the eastern Canadian gulf states, that coastal areas may experience 'local tsunamis' because of underwater seismic action.

That does NOT comfort me at all. All Barbados needs is a local tsunami - we're only 21 miles wide after all...

Anyhow, other news - tiles fell off of the Royal Bank Building in Broad Street, Bridgetown and a chunk of the Parliament Building fell off and damaged a vehicle. But for now, Barbados seems to be ok.

Less comforting verbal reports still coming out of St. Lucia about building falling. But we have (meaning me and Jonathan) have not been able to reach anyone in St. Lucia yet (as you would imagine, the phone lines are in chaos. I still have not been able to reach my mother or sister.) so I can't confirm that.

Earthquake!

2007-11-29T15:27:00.000-04:00

What is possibly the strongest earthquake in Barbados' living memory just hit a short while ago. The whole island is still in a bit of a tizzy and on edge.

I was sitting at my desk when I realised I felt dizzy or lightheaded - like my head was swimming. A few seconds later I heard my workmates shrieking and realised it was not just me. To be honest, I was in a panic. I just froze and clutched my desk, hoping it would pass but the ground just kept swaying and swaying and swaying. In my mind I was thinking "oh my god, we're still moving, why are we still moving?"

I'm listening to reports coming in on Starcom Network. Patrick Ward on Starcom Network just reported that "Bridgetown is a mass of confusion" with evacuated people out in the roads and (our usually hellish) traffic stopped.

They are reporting that the tremorwas felt all along the Windward Islands - St. Lucia, Trinidad, Dominica, Martinique. I just checked the IRIS Seismic Monitor and the tremor was reportedly 7.3.

Fucking 7.3 on the Richter scale! That's major isn't it? I'm more nervous now that it's passed than I was during it, if that is possible.

Apparently a building in Ellerton St. George was damaged and there are verbal reports coming through of cracks in building in St. Lucia.

I'll add more as I hear it...

I want to get away...I want to flllly awayyyy

2007-11-19T14:50:00.000-04:00

...To quote Lenny Kravitz. Nothing deep and political today - just a rant.

Some days like today I feel like a square peg in a round hole here. The in-your-face'God-church-pastor-Christian-Bible' environment is just aggravating sometimes especially since it does not seem sincere in a single person when they good quick to talk someone's name.

The lack of creativity and the stifling of any teensy, weensy sign of it.

The conformist atmosphere.

The fact that I often feel like I have no purpose here, even though I'm trying hard and even asking for work.

It's like that Sesame Street song.

"One of these things just does not belong here. One of these things just is not the same..." That's me.

Who really split the vote- COP or Panday?

2007-11-07T08:32:00.000-04:00

And so, the Trinidadian elections are over and Patrick Manning's People's National Movement (PNM) has won, 26-15.

Almost immediately, the recriminations started, with UNC-Alliance leader Basdeo Panday bitterly accusing the breakaway Congress of the People (COP) of colluding with the PNM to keep them in power. In a 'gracious' concession speech, he stated:

"Those who voted for the PNM, those who voted for the COP and those who did not vote at all, they are the ones responsible for the fear and the crime, corruption and incompetence, malice and discrimination which this country will have to endure for another five years."

To those who cast their ballots for the COP, Panday said, "I want to say, every time one of your family or friend is murdered, kidnapped, robbed, raped, I want you to go and stand up in front the mirror and look at yourself. Look at your face. That is what I want you to do. Then I want you to hold your hands together and prayer. You are responsible because you have voted for the PNM and COP, or not at all

Lovely. Very statesman-like.

Of course, it is ridiculous to imply the COP wanted the PNM to win since the COP presumably would have liked to form the government as much as anyone. However, after their nasty schism last year and then the increasingly desperate efforts by the UNC-A to get the COP to come back into the fold for this election, it is easy to fling accusations. And certainly, a cursory look at the numbers does indicate that the COP was the spoiler. At least five close seats went the PNM's way because of a split in the vote between the COP and the UNC-A. That would have made the balance of power much closer. The begged-for alliance between the two may have even put the PNM out of power.

Even more interestingly, more people actually voted against the PNM than voted for them, but in this first-past-the-post system and with the opposition forces divided, they managed to secure a healthy lead in terms of the number of seats.

In the end, the PNM won 45.85% of the vote, the UNC-Alliance won 29.73% of the vote and the new Congress of the People won 22.64% of the vote, but not a single seat.

According to a special report written by Trinidad Express reporter Darryl Heeralal in today's Nation newspaper, the PNM lost about 5% of the support they had in the last election (they got 50.65% of the vote in 2002).

But! Here is what is the most interesting fact of all. The UNC-A lost 31.63% of the support they had in the last election.

Now that too could be attributed to the COP and indeed a bitter war raged in the comments sections of the Express Online's articles yesterday. Enraged UNC-A supporters blinded Dookeran and the COP for 'keeping Patrick in power' and being a traitor, etc, etc.

But shall we get the meat of the matter now?

Why did Dookeran leave? Furthermore, why did such a significant chunk of the UNC break off and form a new party with him? Why did one of the UNC-A's partners break with them during the election campaign self? Why did Senator Ato Boldon leave the UNC?

We all know the answer. Panday.

Panday has now become the political equivalent of Edward Seaga. A power-hungry old politician that has become toxic to his party and refuses to leave even when it is clear the people do not want him.

Every chance the party has had to get away from Panday's pernicious influence has been overturned, rebuffed, wormed out of. He's worse than a wart or cancer - at least you can get rid of those.

It seemed for a brief time that the UNC-A would choose the dutiful Kamla Persad-Bissessar for party leader and give themselves a chance to escape the Panday stranglehold. But no. Kamla was betrayed and worse, she stood and took it. The UNC-A seem incapable of realising that Panday is anathema to most people in Trinidadand Tobago.

But Panday, like Seaga, is used to being the 'big man' in his party. Even more so than Seaga in fact. Panday was the founder of his party and clearly feels, even at 74 that it is his right to lead it til death do them part. Before Monday's election, he was saying that this would be his last election campaign. But by Monday evening, he was saying that 'the people' would have to decide on his future. Nice.

Yet, instead of facing the hard truth that Bas is the problem, the UNC-A is continuing about its merry way. He is tipped to become Opposition Leader, replacing Kamla Persad-Bissessar who held the post for the last two years or so.

Sigh. I ent know what to say to such wilful blindness. The old people say who don't hear, must feel. Clearly the UNC-A hasn't felt it enough yet or perhaps they are buffered in that they have a convenient target to blame. The people in Trinidad will never vote for a party led by Basdeo Panday again. If he could not even rally his own base (or what was formerly his base), how does he feel he will ever regain power?

By the way...no matter how I tried, I could not get those two pictures to line up next to each other at all, at all... I try everything. Sign of the times, nuh? *lol*

Manning says...sugar is slavery

2007-10-24T09:45:00.000-04:00

Well, basically along those lines. At a PNM election campaign meeting in Barrackpore on Monday night, Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Patrick Manning lashed out at the UNC Alliance for wanting to revive the sugar industry and said it was akin to slavery.

The Trinidad Express reported:
Manning said the UNC Alliance has been saying to sugar workers that if it wins the November 5 general election "they will revive the industry and put you back to cutting cane, that is slavery, that is going back to slavery, that will only happen over my dead body".

I...am a bit conflicted over this. Truth is, I would not want to cut cane. It is some hard, physically demanding work. But so is construction work or banana farming or well-digging.

Yet it is only cane cutting that has this stigma. For obvious reasons. The sugar industry was the main driver behind slavery in the West Indies and it still has very negative connotations for people.

But Manning as an educated man should know better than to fall into the simple, emotional trap of dubbing the sugar industry as this terrible monster that we are better seeing the backs of.

It is true that much of the decline of the sugar industry has been due to the EU cruelly cutting its subsidies to the region, arguing that we need to face up to the free market and compete (while at the same time heavily subsidising their various agricultural industries, especially with dairy products - hypocritical bastards).

But part of it has also been that Caribbean people have fled from the sugar industry and farming on the whole so we have not been even able to make the ever dwindling quotas we had left.

But farming is not a bad thing. It makes you sweat but it is not a bad thing. My grandfather was a small farmer. He had plots of cane and also grew other things. My mother and aunts now tend one of those plots of land and we get cucumbers, tomatoes, cassava, yams and other things from it.

This snobbery we have adopted towards farming because of our history is not boding well for the Caribbean. If people cannot feed themselves, then we are reliant on the whims of others. Look at how the price of living is skyrocketing in Barbados.

Incitation or just free speech?

2007-10-23T11:09:00.000-04:00

I'm a bit torn over the latest Muhammad-cartoon brouhaha.
Here is the issue in a nutshell. Swedish artist Lars Vilks drew a sketch of the Prophet Muhammad on the body of a dog as part of an exhibit of work he was doing. Several Swedish galleries refused to display it, fearing violent responses from Islamic radicals and general controversy.

However, newspaper Nerikes Allehanda, printed the cartoon on August 19, along with an editorial criticising Swedish galleries for self-censorship.

Naturally, there was a huge fallout. Muslims are paranoid about idolatry and less than amused at having their prophet depicted as a dog. Afghanistan, Egypt, Jordan and some other countries protested officially and the seemingly requisite by now Al-Qaeda linked radicals have issued fatwas and death threats and huge sums of money to anyone who slaughters Vilks like a lamb".

Wonderful.

Now far be it from me to defend Muslim radicals or Islam at all. I am as suspicious of Islam as an institution as I am of Christianity. Neither religious institution has been historically pleasant to black folks. Arab Muslims were enslaving and selling black people long before white Christians got around to it. Furthermore, I have my doubts about this whole thing about Islam being peacefully introduced to swathes of North and West Africa. Basically, I figure, the religion of the conquerors won out. Just like Christianity did on our side of the Atlantic. But I have never been of the school of thought that Islam is a religion I should feel some affinity for as a female descendant of black slaves. They don't like me anymore than white Christendom does.

Anyhow, I digress greatly. My thing is, I think Vilks is getting what he deserved and moreover what he wanted - attention. He seems to me to be like one of those annoying-no-ass little bullies who creates a scene just to get attention, even if it's negative attention.

Why the hell would you depict Mohammed as a dog? For that matter, why would you depict any revered religious prophet as a dog? It's offensive no matter who you do it to. (Except maybe ancient Egyptians since they were so big on the half-man, half-animal depictions). However, for most people of the Book (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) being depicted as an animal is a cause for offense. An ordinary, non-prophet person would not wish to be depicted as half animal. It's not cool. So doing so is even more offensive when you depict a religious prophet as such.

I think Vilks was just being a shit-disturber and trying to incite anger and hatred. And then when he gets it, he's all surprised and 'oh boo-hoo-hoo, them mean Al-Qaedaists are out to get poor innocent me'. Give me a break.

I even went out and googled Lars Vilks and 'reason' to see if he was trying to make some kind of sentient, reasonable statement with such a cartoon. Was there some kind of reason for such a depiction? What was he trying to say?

This is what he had to say to Swedish news agency TT as quoted in the Swedish-English paper The Local:

"We must be free to criticize religions. Why should Islam be exempted from the sort of criticism that is commonplace for Judaism and Christianity?" he said.

Vilks added that "a hot potato" was needed to force a proper discussion.

"A lot of people think we should have a nice debate, but when it comes down to it nobody is interested. An initiative of sorts is needed to bring matters to a head," he said.

The artist added that his intention had been to launch a discussion on principles rather than Islam, said Vilks, something which he still felt was not out of the question.

"Of course this is coming from a secular perspective, but that too is a perspective that needs to have its voice heard," he said.

Aside from criticizing religion, the artist indicated that he was interested in exploring the limits of freedom of speech.

"Where should they be drawn? A lot of people say that freedom of speech shouldn't be exploited in all contexts, that one should be careful and exercise moral responsibility.

"There has to be discussion about where these limits should be set, and I don't think they've been exceeded here," he said.

Hm. I'm not impressed. Yes, I take his point that we need to be free to criticise religions. But what precise criticism was he making by the dog/prophet depiction? At least with the infamous Danish cartoons last year (with the prophet's turban depicted as a coiled bomb, hence criticising the violence people wreak in the name of Islam) I got the point.

But Vilks has failed to explain what is his point, other than to create a 'hot potato' as he so delicately puts it. Considering that he has acknowledged the drawing had no point except to stir up controversy (by being offensive) I say it is mere shit disturbing. And I find such behaviour childish and disreputable in a so-called prominent artist.

Furthermore, I find him damn arrogant with his proclamations that "An initiative of sorts is needed to bring matters to a head," and that "a lot of people think we should have a nice debate, but when it comes down to it nobody is interested."

I see. So the issue of freedom of speech and Islamic sensitivity had not been discussed until the heroic Lars Vilks took it upon himself to initiate the discussion? Where has he been the last two years or so? The topic has been discussed ad nauseum. We didn't need him to bring it up- it already been brung.

So I find that argument fails as well. He admitted he was not trying to make any salient point with the sketch other than to spark debate. A debate that had long been going on, as evidenced by the fact that this has not caused nearly as much furore as the Danish cartoons row. Poor fella has not even gotten half the attention he had hoped to.

Shit-disturbing twat.

Top scientist claims black people are 'stupid'...ho hum...

2007-10-17T09:13:00.000-04:00

Well, Dr. James Watson, who won the Nobel Prize for his part in discovering the structure of the DNA has claimed that black people are inherently stupid.

According to Times Online:

The 79-year-old geneticist said he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really.". He said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.

He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.

However, most unscientifically (surprise!)the famed geneticist admits there is no genetic proof for this (and if there was any, he should know eh?). Times Online reported:

He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

Nothing at all there about the social biases or flaws that have been found in all of these tests that apparently prove how teeny our brains are.

Despite posting this on my blog, I'm not really outraged. Just weary. This does not surprise me. The arrogance and presumptuousness of many Caucasians fails to shock me anymore. It really doesn't. When I was studying in England last year, I was racially harassed by a set of chav teenagers in Nottingham. When I got home by my sister I called the police and they were oh so sorry and dismayed at it. But what was more dismaying to them was then they asked me how I felt and I just shrugged and said it was something I expected to happen eventually. 'Oh no, that's terrible that you feel that way.' Why? I should be surprised? What kind of poppet would I be?

When I was at Warwick, a uni lecturer at Leeds made similar comments and I went and protested. What the hell for? Well, aside from getting him to leave the university, which in the end allowed him to take early retirement and keep his full pension. Was I surprised? No.

The French president commented the other day about the simplicity of Africans and claimed that Africa never had a golden age of history. So all that stuff about creating mathematics and astronomy and the Egyptian and more recently, Mali and Songhay empires that stretched thousands of miles, that was all bunk, understand? But was I surprised? No.

What kills me about all of this is though is the truth of it all. See, I know too much history. Studied it too long and am still too interested in it. So I know that European and Euro-descended societies (such as the US and Canada), were the last to reach their peak or golden age of civilisation. Dem just reach. Thousands of years after Africans had created maths and astronomy and writing, long after Asians had traded with half the world, way after Arabs and Persians had created three of the world's main religions, Europeans finally got it together, about 500 years ago-right about the time of the Renaissance. It was a miserable, blighted, beknighted, poverty-stricken place before, with rival tribes - Franks, Angles, Saxons, Celts, Gauls, Goths and Vandals, fighting one another like dogs and believing in primitive religions. If you get the chance, watch the History Channel series 'The Barbarians' (absolutely gripping - me and my mum used to watch it as avidly as if it was a soap opera). European society was not cute, nor was it advanced.

So, in historical terms, Europeans are 'Come Yuhs' as we say in the Caribbean. Yet there is this arrogance towards the civilisations on whose backs they now (precariously) stand. And they won't stand forever. That is not spiteful wishfulness but just the burden of history dictates that all civilisations and empires have their fall. And sometimes, like China is doing now, they rise again. Other times, like Rome/Italy, they don't.

But most people aren't big on history, so they are not going to see it in anything other than the context of now. But yet, you don't even have to look that far back. Sixty years ago, much of Europe was in a ruinous state, through their own actions. Privation and hunger stalked defeated Germany and Italy. Ninety years ago, Norway which is now the most prosperous country in the world, lost two-thirds of its population growth (or some 10 to 15% of the population) to emigration because the country had nothing in it for them.

But I have a second major issue coming out of these statements by Watson. It is that too many black people play right into the hands of some of these racists. See Watson's statement "people who have to deal with black employees find this [claims of equal intelligence] not true." Black people do so much to give these people fodder for their claims. African American popular culture as it is now, is 90% mortifying. And Africa? Oh Africa...

The state of so much of Africa is just depressing. Even in the countries that you think have it somewhat together, some shit does happen to just disrupt your whole view of that. Countries with ridiculous amounts of natural resources just can't seem to see the benefits of stability and democracy so that they can all benefit from them. People have antiquated attitudes to sexuality so AIDS has stalked the continent. And these attitudes are not limited just to sex. I read a story in Vanity Fair's Africa issue of an attempt somewhere in East Africa to help small farmers make the most of what they have. It was suggested that the villagers should cut grass to make hay for their camels so that the poor beasts would have something to eat when there is drought.

"God has brought us this grass," one man objects. "It is not ours to cut." Mohamed nods patiently. An old woman confronts him, and others join in. Mohamed is interfering in their way of life, they say. Soon everyone is shouting. Mohamed translates for me: "They are saying it is God's gift and the more you cut, the angrier God gets. It's a bad omen, they say." Gesticulating wildly, the old woman pokes her finger in Mohamed's face. "Please," she begs him, "for heaven's sake don't cut our grass."

I wanted to cry at the breath-taking ignorance of it all. It just makes a small, traitorous part of you think... 'no wonder...no wonder they think of us like that.'

Sigh. It's just wearying on every front.

He's got an Emmy, an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize so...

2007-10-12T09:41:00.000-04:00

Gore for President? Again? With Al Gore being declared the joint winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize, the pressure is intensifying from lobbying groups who want to see him make a run for the US Presidency which many right thinking people believe was stolen from him in the debacle of 2000.

I must admit... it is a hella tempting prospect. Clearly the Republicans need to go. (Of course, as a black person and a person of a liberal political bent, I never thought they should have been there in the first place.) And I suspect many Americans now bitterly rue the mistake they made in 2000 by 'electing' George Bush over Gore. So that nostalgia factor is heavily present.

And then - God knows, you got to respect how Gore came back from such a devastatingly close presidential race in 2000. He could easily have let himself stay embittered and mutter 'I wuz robbed' all the days of his life.

But he did not. He grew a beard and then he got a life. Used his stature as 'almost president' to raise major interest and bring attention to a serious issue that was important to him. In so doing, he has raised the profile of the issue tremendously, given it the attention it really deserves and forced people worldwide to have a conversation about it. Anonymous scientists without the 'brand recognition' of Gore could have tried futilely for years (as they had been) to get people pay attention to how crucial climate change is.

It's funny now if you consider how Gore's image has been revamped. There was a time when he was thought to be dull and wooden and uninteresting. People underestimated and undervalued him and he did not win as he deserved. Now his public image is far, far better than that of Dubya.

So will he go for it? I'm torn. I have been excited at the prospect of a female US president (Hillary) and even more so at the prospect of a (sexy:) black one (Barack). The US is still the most powerful and influential country in the world and having either of these people as president would be a powerful message and symbol.

But at the end of the day, I just want the Republicans to lose. And for the Democrats to win. And for some sanity to return to the White House.

And I think Gore has the best chance. I think the Republicans would really quake at the prospect of a Gore 2.0 (or 2.8?) candidacy.

So I think I would tentatively lean towards a Gore presidential run.

Welcome back Dawn 1o9 :)

2007-10-10T22:05:00.000-04:00

As you would realise from reading this blog, the recent uprisings in Burma/Myanmar are something I've taken an especial interest in.

So, on that note, I'd just like to extend a little welcome back to the brave blogger Dawn 1o9, who was caught behind the internet blackout that her country's junta had imposed for over a week, so as to hide their nasty dealings from the world.

From the very start of the uprisings, Dawn has been giving valuable apolitical insight into the goings on in Myanmar, blogging about what she had been able to glimpse and hear from her office in downtown Yangon/Rangoon. Inadvertently, this young woman became part of something bigger as hers was one of the few non-official voices we could hear out of Burma. She underplayed or perhaps did not even comprehend what an impact she was having, saying:

My friend said I was brave blogging about this when I am confused about where I stand. I was not being brave. I am a coward hiding in the office. At first, I started removing my photo in my profile, and was going to hide the posts that provide personal details of me. Then I decided not to because I am not doing anything wrong.

In the midst of all these chaos, I am very afraid. I am afraid for myself, I am afraid for my family, and I am afraid for the country.

But with the world desperate to know what was going on in her country, her blog ended up getting global coverage and many of us had been worried for her safety for the last few days when there was no news coming out.

But now that the blackout has been lifted somewhat (who knows how long that will last?), she has been able to blog again. I'm glad she's safe.

Seriously...who call he?

2007-10-10T09:56:00.000-04:00

I actually like Vincentian Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves, you know. I find him charming and articulate and fairly sporty, as far as politicians go.

But what I can't tek about Ralphie is how he always 'inna-inna' some other island's politics. And it's starting to make him look quite the busybody. Heck, forget starting to make him look so...he just look so, straight.

I don't know if it is because he is such an ebullient character who has lived all around the region and because he attended UWI with many of these leaders in a time where rhetoric about Caribbean unity ran deep, he feels some sort of kinship. I get that he sees himself as a 'Caribbean man' and I guess he may feel that issues in other islands concern him too.

But he cannot seem to keep himelf off of political platforms in other people's islands! And with the silly season sweeping the Caribbean in the last year (see my earlier post on the topic - It's Enough to Make a Politics Junkie Cry)it seem like Ralphie all bout the place like Poonka nowadays.

And he don't hold his tongue. He cannot just be happy to spout some platitudes about leadership and unity and this is a good party. He does have to attack his friend's enemies. So in Jamaica, he blind the JLP for the PNP. Not once but twice. In St. Lucia, he blind the UWP and Sir John Compton for Kenny Anthony.

And now he at it in Dominica, cussing the Opposition which is trying to bring down Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerritt over some (admittedly tenuous) corruption allegations.

I don't understand de man - you politicking in somebody else country? Who call you? You from bout hey? The first time or two it was cute, but now it is annoying and unseemly. And he knows it. According to the Caribbean Media Corporation:

He said while he was not getting involved in Dominica's internal politics, he would nonetheless not allow political opponents to smear the reputation of the 36-year-old Dominican leader.

"They are going to say that I shouldn't be coming here to Dominica and talk about my friend. He is my friend, and I will not stand by and watchpeople beat up on my friend, I will come to help my friend.

Again , I say - who call he? Furthermore, he said he was not getting involved in Dominica's politics, but ammm... that is EXACTLY what he doing!

It is unbecoming and frankly stupid for a political leader of another island, who should at least try to maintain some semblance of neutrality, to be 'tekking up fire rage' for a politician in another country.

And with the winds of political change that have swept the region in recent times, it is making him look quite foolish. The same JLP that he cuss, is now in power, and as fellow CARICOM heads, he now has to deal with them and their leader. Similarly, in St. Lucia, Kenny Anthony is now out in the political cold and the UWP which Gonsalves cuss is now running things.

How does this augur for regional diplomacy? Yes, Gonsalves may have his political preferences and friends in the different islands - those with whom he feels more politically in tune, but unless the issue is one that directly affects St. Vincent, why he always putting he mouth in other people's business? He really needs to stop now.

It's getting closer...

2007-10-10T08:52:00.001-04:00

Christmas that is! The signs are already evident. In the last two weeks, at least a dozen stores, major and minor have held sales- Courts, Standards, Cave Shepherd, Sheraton Mall and now Abeds and Shop Smart are in the ling, clearing out their old stock and preparing to bring in their wildly overpriced new Xmas stock.

The police were out over the weekend, warning the vendors in the city, particularly those in the slightly chaotic area behind Cave Shepherd/ near to Woolworth's back entrance that they gots to go by Christmas time. The police said, and I agree, that the presence of so many vendors clustered in that area creates confusion and congestion (cars are actually supposed to be able to traverse that road, though few drivers bother with the hassle) and said pedestrian congestion provides an environment ripe for crime. I can testify to that, since I was hit up for about $200 by a pickpocket in that very area back in 2000. I emerged from what was then Brydens to go into Norman Centre. I felt someone jostling me, but there were hundreds of people packed in that space so that was not unusual- I was jostling people too. When I got into NC and looked for my purse, it was long gone.

Anyhoo, that is a detour. Back to signs of the season - de Trinis! A big ole, full-colour ad in the middle of today's Nation urging Bajans to come on down and 'shop til you drop'. Now if that ent a sign, I don't know what is.

I would feel a way...

2007-10-08T13:59:00.001-04:00

If I was Kamla Persad-Bissessar, part of the purported 'fearsome foursome' of the UNC Alliance.

Now, last week this time, it was being touted that she was the front-runner for leadership of the UNC Alliance. Apparently Basdeo Panday had given her his blessing and the party was going to support her.

By the very next day, it was clear someone had back-raised her as the front page of the Express trumpeted 'It's Bas and Jack!'

Panday like he could not help himself and jump back in the ring, with the promise of bringing along the dodgy Jack Warner as his partner-in-someting rhyming wid time.
According to the Trinidad Express of Friday, October 5:

According to sources, the leadership was initially leaning in Persad-Bissessar's favour, as she had the support of Panday who had initially said, "I don't want the job". She was said to be the favoured choice after the leadership council held a meeting at the same location on Tuesday.

However, upon the return of Warner, who was absent from Tuesday's meeting because he was out of the country, everything changed.

Sources said that Warner did not feel Persad-Bissessar could have led the party into elections and to victory, and the only person who he had faith and confidence in was Panday.

After yesterday's meeting, according to Warner, the leadership council unanimously agreed that he and Panday should lead the party in the November 5 General Elections.

And so Kamla was out in the cold. Poor soul, she shoulda know better. She ever think that wily old political animal really did not want the party leadership?

But it is a cruel blow though because she has been loyal to him even as nuff others run and she held the party together even as others fled cos they could not stand Panday. And this is how she is repaid for her loyalty?

Even UNC supporters were non-plussed as reported on Saturday.

Angry supporters are threatening to return party T-shirts and cancel maxi-taxi rides to the party's big launch and presentation of candidates at Mid Centre Mall tomorrow.

The Panday decision to hang on to the leadership of the UNC in a power-sharing pact with Warner, the last of the party's big moneymen, was seen as a betrayal by many UNC loyalists, who questioned the appearance and the timing of the move.

One insider said the manoeuvre was a clear and final indication from the party's charismatic and somewhat damaged leader that he was not going to give the UNC to anybody.

Sources close to the latest UNC split told the Express that things went terribly south during the final round of talks on the leadership issue at Warner's Emerald Plaza on Thursday night.

From all accounts, Panday was never going to give up leadership of the party he founded notwithstanding his endorsement of Persad-Bissessar on Tuesday night.

Simple as that.

So on Sunday, the only consolation prize Panday held out to Persad-Bissessar was this:

Panday also revealed the "special role" for Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar - head of the women's contingent of the UNC Alliance.

What...the...hell.

This woman was Attorney General, Opposition Leader and well on track to making a run at Prime Minister and this pyahh-pyahh (is that how you spell it) measly role is what you offer her? It smacks of condesencion and sexism! A pat on the head, and go along nice little lady, let the big men work.

Furthermore, to make it all the more laughable, Panday admitted that he had not even consulted Persad-Bissessar on this position yet, but asked the crowd at the political meeting (at which he made the announcement) for their support.

Say it with me now- DISRESPECT!

Bloggers for Burma...sigh

2007-10-04T11:44:00.000-04:00

Today is International Bloggers for Burma day. The concept was thought up by the creators of the Free Burma site so that bloggers worldwide could express their outrage about how the Burmese regime has treated their own people in brutally cracking down on the recent peaceful pro-democracy protests.

The Burmese regime has shown their utter paranoia and weakness by cutting off the internet last week so that the courageous bloggers within their country who were sending pictures and just insight to the outside world, no longer have a voice. What kind of world is this when a government will just cut off the internet to the whole country? That kind of heavy-handed, paranoid behaviour just blows my mind... but it also gives an idea what kind of enemy the Burmese people are up against.

Even the Chinese, censorious and controlling as they are of the internet (collaborating with google for instance to block sites about Falun Gong or the Tianamen Square massacres) have never gone so far as to cut off the entire internet system of the country. Even in South Africa during apartheid, news of protests and demonstrations were still able to come out of the country.

But Burma's cowardly generals have imposed a total blackout.

So today, as small a gesture as it is, we will try to speak for those in Burma who have been silenced.

I pray that they have only been silenced temporarily. I genuinely believe that this could be the start of a years-long liberation struggle. Lest we fall prey to cynicism, let us remember the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 - when I started thinking of the present phase of the Burmese struggle, it has eerily parallels with that. People fighting against an oppressive governnment, backed by a hugely powerful and well armed superpower (trade Soviet Union for China). Indeed, the Hungarians were defeated then and virtually abandoned by the outside world, which just gave them ineffectual expressions and UN resolutions of support (much like now) but did nothing to help their cause.

Many thought the power of the Soviet Union could never be defeated.Indeed it took 80-odd years. But some of the rebels of 1956 lived to see the establishment of the Hungarian Republic in 1989 and the apology of the dissembled Soviet Union in 1991.

Another parallel could be the fight of black and coloured South Africans against the apartheid regime- which was, lest we forget was backed by the US under Ronald Reagan (and he got all he deserved for that and other sins later in life) and Britain under Margaret Thatcher (the Iron Bitch called Mandela a terrorist).

But democracy in the end prevailed, because oppression is contrary to the human spirit and cannot last forever. Democracy is unwieldy and perhaps in some ways contrary to the baser instincts of human nature (after all, who wants to share power and take public criticism and all that comes with democracy?) but so far it is the best option we have. I hope that some of this generation of Burmese revolutionaries live to see the day it comes to their country.

It's enough to make a politics junkie cry...

2007-10-03T10:11:00.000-04:00

No sooner had I come down from my high off of the dramatic Jamaican elections, did Patrick Manning finally stop de playing around and pocket-pulling and call the date of the Trinidad and Tobago elections- November 5.

Oh it is a glorious time for politics and news junkies in the Caribbean. Elections all in a row and some big ones- St. Lucia, Jamaica and now Trinidad, with BVI and Bahamas thrown in for good measure and Barbados expected to follow soon.

And they have not been staid, run-of-the-mill affairs either. It has been non-stop action from the time Kenny started things off in December 06.

Massive surprise defeat for ruling party! Analysts and pollsters baffled! Geriatric Father of Independence comes back to lead fractious 'flambeaus' to victory! Then his party members turn on him! He dies! (This part was not surprising...what was surprising was that St. Lucians would vote for an 82 year old man) MP, sacked minister and Taiwan-lover found to be convicted felon in US! Under an assumed name!

And that was just St. Lucia...jeez. Jamaica was no less exciting, with a tight, ding-dong battle, occasionally plagued by political violence, going right down to the wire- 31-29 became 32-38 and then 33-27...but then it went back to 32-28 after much back and forthing in a country constituency and a razor-thin margin of victory. And don't forget the Mysterious Disappearing and then Reappearing Ballot Boxes in St. Mary.

And now Trinidad. Elections called and all parties still seem to be in turmoil. The ruling party has not even named their full election slate yet and are still battling to evict some supposedly unpopular MPs like Ken Valley via the All-Powerful Screening Committee. Why the heck would a Prime Minister in a cushy position, with fractious opposition parties stir foment in his own party? Your guess is as good as mine. Not even Trinidadians seem to get it.

But oh how entertaining it all is. I can't WAIT for Barbados' election next year. Between The Hospital, The Great Floor-Crossing and The Double-Triple Highway, it should be great fun. Not to mention it will be the first election in which I will get to vote! I was out of the island (at summer school in JA) for the last one in 2003 and just a bit too young in 1999 ( I was 17). So I'm really looking forward to getting to exercise my adult suffrage.

I support the saffron revolution...and Ko Htike

2007-09-27T11:03:00.001-04:00

Though there is not much that I can do for Burma, being literally on the other side of the world, I just wanted to say that I really admire and commend the bravery of the Burmese people and especially their monks, in taking on their regime.

The odds are heavily, heavily stacked against them (in-depth reporting of the whole situation can be found at my favourite news site the Guardian) but people power has won out before. Call me a ridiculous optimist, I hope this has soem effect, especially since some elements within the Burmese army have now voiced their support for the protests.

But most of all, since I am after all a journalist at heart, I want to praise the Burmese bloggers such as fellow blogspotter Ko Htike who has been blogging daily about the events, even as the Burmese junta have been doing their level best to block internet and mobile access. Much of the blog is in Burmese symbols and so it might come out as little squares, but the pictures speak for themselves, as do the bits in broken English. Read it.

Baby Doc to Haiti: Forgive me

2007-09-26T12:02:00.000-04:00

It appears that looting the Haitian treasury for nearly two decades was not enough to sustain Haitian former dictator Jean-Claude 'Baby Doc' Duvalier in sufficient luxury.

The rapacious, murderous cockroach is apparently now penniless in Paris, where he has been living in luxurious exile since 1986.

Now, he is apparently asking for the forgiveness of the Haitian people.

Duvalier's sorta mea culpa went as follows:

If, during my presidential mandate, the government caused any physical, moral or economic wrongs to others, I solemnly take the historical responsibility ... to request forgiveness from the people and ask for the impartial judgment of history

But if you ask me, there is more in the mortar than on the pestle. Most international news organisations just focused on the apology and the slim likelihood that Duvalier may be hoping to return to Haiti and to Haitian politics (though can it be considered a 'return to politics' since the dictatorship of Haiti was handed to him? anyhoo...semantics).

Like I was saying, news organisations have focused on the fact that in recent years Duvalierist sympathisers haev been trying to soften public opinion against him and even stir up nostalgia for the good old days of his dictatorship.

But in the rest of his comments I see something more sinister than that. Duvalier also issued this call:

The watchword is already launched, the instruction is given. Militants and militant sympathizers of the National Unity party be ready. We live in waiting of the revival.

Excuse me? Militants and militant sympathisers be ready? Am I the only one who sees that as a very thinly-veiled threat? Could Baby Doc and his people be hoping to take advantage of the fragile situation that has prevailed in Haiti since the violence and US-French kidnapping of legitimate president Jean Bertrand Aristide in 2004?

I just find the prospect of a vile, violent and venal dictator-in-exile calling on militant sympathisers to be ready, rather disturbing.